Liverpool Merseyside - library › 2467 › 1 › L10312_MI... · 2015-03-12 · MANN ISLAND, Liverpool Merseyside Archaeological Excavation Report Oxford Archaeology North March

MANN ISLAND,

Liverpool

Merseyside

Archaeological ExcavationReport

Oxford Archaeology North

March 2012

Countryside Neptune llp

Issue No: 2011-12/1243OA North Job: L10312NGR: SJ 3403 9008

Mann Island, Merseyside: Archaeological Excavation Report 1

For the use of Countryside Neptune llp © OA North March 2012

CONTENTS

CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................... 1

SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................... 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................... 6

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 71.1 Circumstances of the Project .............................................................................................. 71.2 Site Location, Topography and Geology............................................................................. 81.3 Previous Work.................................................................................................................... 8

2. METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................ 10

2.1 Project Design.................................................................................................................. 102.2 Excavation and Watching Brief ........................................................................................ 102.3 Updated Project Aims....................................................................................................... 112.4 The Artefacts.................................................................................................................... 122.5 Archive ............................................................................................................................ 122.6 Recipient Museum ........................................................................................................... 132.7 Discard Policy.................................................................................................................. 13

3. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 143.1 Liverpool’s Early History and the Construction of the Old Dock ...................................... 143.2 The Dry Dock and Nova Scotia ........................................................................................ 163.3 Manchester Basin: Late Eighteenth-century Expansion of the Quayside ........................... 223.4 Manchester and Canning Docks: Nineteenth-century Improvements to the Quayside ....... 253.5 The Mersey Railway ........................................................................................................ 303.6 The Twentieth-century Decline of the Mann Island Docks................................................ 31

4. EXCAVATION RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 34

4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 344.2 Phase 1 (Mersey Foreshore: Medieval–Mid-Eighteenth Century) ..................................... 344.3 Phase 2 (The First Sea Wall and Dry Dock: 1740s)........................................................... 354.4 Phase 3 (The Second Sea Wall, Bird’s Slip, George’s Dock Passage and Novia Scotia

Occupation: late 1740s–early 1760s) ................................................................................ 374.5 Phase 4 (Slip: 1770s)........................................................................................................ 394.6 Phase 5 (Manchester Basin, Manchester Dock and Mann Island Occupation: 1770s–

c 1815) ............................................................................................................................. 404.7 Phase 6 (Dock Police Office, Foreman Sweeper’s Office and Weighing Machine: 1830s) 434.8 Phase 7 (Mersey Railway Tunnel: 1881–6)....................................................................... 454.9 Phase 8 (First Half of the Twentieth Century: 1900–50) ................................................... 454.10 Phase 9 (Later Twentieth Century: 1950–2000) ................................................................ 48



5. THE FINDS ................................................................................................................................ 50

5.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 505.2 The Pottery....................................................................................................................... 505.3 The Ceramic Building Material ........................................................................................ 575.4 The Clay Tobacco Pipe..................................................................................................... 575.5 The Metalwork................................................................................................................. 685.6 The Glass ......................................................................................................................... 695.7 The Animal Bone ............................................................................................................. 715.8 Discussion........................................................................................................................ 71

6. DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 746.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 746.2 Reclamation and Sea Walls............................................................................................... 756.3 Dock Walls....................................................................................................................... 776.4 Warehousing across Nova Scotia and Mann Island ........................................................... 796.5 Other Buildings................................................................................................................ 806.6 Research Aims ................................................................................................................. 816.7 Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 85

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................... 86

7.1 Published Cartographic Sources ....................................................................................... 867.2 Primary Sources ............................................................................................................... 867.3 Secondary Sources ........................................................................................................... 87

APPENDIX 1: POTTERY FABRICS .................................................................................................. 93

APPENDIX 2: CLAY PIPE CATALOGUE........................................................................................... 97

ILLUSTRATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 108

Figures........................................................................................................................................ 108Plates .......................................................................................................................................... 109



LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Residents in Nova Scotia listed in the Gore’s Directory of 1774 23Table 2: Ships berthing in the Manchester Basin based on the Liverpool Directory of 1790 24

Table 3: List of residents and businesses for Nova Scotia taken from Gore’s Directory of 1803 26Table 4: Artefact totals by type 52

Table 5: The fabrics present within the assemblage 53Table 6: Mould Types from Kiln Waste attributable to William Morgan 63

Table 7: Range of mould types represented 64Table 8: Maker’s Marks arranged by mark type and context 67

Table 9: Coins from the site 71



SUMMARY

The area known as Mann Island (centred at SJ 3403 9008) is bounded on the north by a road of thesame name, on the east by The Strand, and on the west by the Mersey itself, while the CanningGraving Docks form the southern limit. The Strand, as the name implies, marks the approximateposition of the natural shoreline of the Mersey, prior to two centuries of land reclamation. MannIsland itself, which lies partly within the Maritime Mercantile City of Liverpool World HeritageSite, consists entirely of made ground, created during the construction of a series of docks.The process of reclamation began in the early eighteenth century, when a tidal basin to ease theapproach to the Old Dock (built 1710–17) was established. The later extension and development ofthis, from c 1738, created the Dry Dock, from which Canning Dock was adapted in 1829. Furtherphases of reclamation westwards culminated in the establishment of Manchester Basin (later Dock)in 1785.The archaeological excavations on Mann Island, carried out by Oxford Archaeology North betweenMay 2007 and May 2008, with further work in July 2009 and May 2011, on behalf of CountrysideNeptune, occupied ground extending from the early eighteenth-century reclamation close to theoriginal shoreline, westwards to the northern and eastern walls of Manchester Dock, and includedsuccessive limits of land reclamation in between. From an examination of historical records andmaps, it was apparent that the excavation was likely to encounter the remains of sea walls, the DryDock, the passage between Canning Dock and George’s Dock to the north, Manchester Dock, theMersey Railway Pumping and Ventilation Station, and buildings which occupied the area markedon maps as Nova Scotia.

At the outset, a building survey was undertaken of the standing structures, which included theTransit Shed, and Voss Motor buildings. Following the demolition of these, a programme ofexcavation was implemented. The excavation took three forms: a watching brief on trenchesexcavated by the construction engineers to assess ground conditions; excavation, assisted bymachine, of areas of complex building remains; and the bulk excavation by machine of infilledground behind sea walls and within redundant docks. Details of the construction of each of themajor features were revealed by these processes. In most instances, the dock and sea walls were allremarkably well-preserved, to almost their full original profile. Walling of the Dry Dock, George’sDock Passage, Manchester Dock and three successive sea walls was located, showing developmentsand variations in construction technique and material over a period of less than 50 years in themiddle to late eighteenth century. A watching brief was maintained during piling works in thevicinity of the Dry Dock wall in July 2009 and 2011, some of which directly impacted upon thewall.In all areas there were also the remains of the ancillary buildings serving the docks and providingaccommodation for those engaged in their operation, which extended across the area of reclaimedland formerly called Nova Scotia. The buildings took the form of dwellings and warehouses,although a number of the warehouses also included dwellings in their cellars. Domestic buildings inthe southern part of the site were subject to considerable change, and indeed demolition, whereasthose to the north survived through to the early twentieth century and included a number of publichouses, their function evidenced by trade directories. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, thename Nova Scotia had become centred on one of a series of streets and the area as a whole hadacquired the name Mann Island.



The investigations generated large quantities of stratigraphical and structural data and substantialassemblages of finds. The excavation results thus add significantly to what was known andunderstood about the form and technology of some of Liverpool’s most notable maritimeengineering structures, and has enabled a detailed chronology of the early development of the docksystem, and of the reclamation of land from the Mersey, to be compiled.



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Oxford Archaeology North wishes to thank Countryside Neptune for commissioning the project,and in particular Ian Bradshaw, Stephen Osuhor and Tim McCormac for their interest andenthusiasm, as well as Dave Hodgkinson and Helen Martin-Bacon, the archaeological consultantsof Wardell Armstrong, for their support in the course of the project. We would also like to thankSarah-Jane Farr, the Merseyside Archaeological Officer, for providing information and supportthroughout the course of the excavation, and Rob Philpott and Mark Adams of National MuseumsLiverpool, and Adrian Jarvis, of the University of Liverpool’s Centre for Port and Maritime History,for their support and for information willingly given during the course of the excavation.

Sincere thanks go to the site team of the principal contractor, BAM, which included Neil Millward,Peter Marner, David Mahoney, John-Luke Smith, Eamonn Murphy, and Dave Hanlon, for their helpand support throughout the course of the excavation work, and especially the bulk excavation. FromTisdale, the demolition contractors, thanks are due to Terry Mason, and his team, for their essentialon-site support and help. From Boundary, plant providers, thanks must be expressed to the machine-plant operators, for their patience and professionalism in undertaking the machining. Hylift operatorDes Alcock, of Hylift Access Hire, is thanked for his assistance in capturing aerial photographs ofthe Mann Island bulk excavation as it progressed. We would also like to thank Mahers, plantproviders, for the assistance and patience of their skilled digger drivers during the course of the bulkexcavation, including Gordon Robinson, Andy Noakes, Simon Braithwaite, Bryan Sutton and GaryAgyse. The work would not have been possible without them.The evaluation and excavation work was undertaken by Vix Hughes, Andy Lane and CarolineRaynor, with the assistance of Ric Buckle, Caroline Bulcock, Ged Callaghan, Tim Christian, PascalEloy, Will Gardner, Fiona Gordon, Annie Hamilton-Gibney, Joanne Hawkins, Pip Haworth, PaulHolmes, Gemma Jones, Andrea Kenyon, Tom Mace, Dave Lamb, Des O’Leary, Mark Oldham,Kieran Power, Andy Proctor, Elizabeth Murray, and Claire Riley. The watching brief work in 2009was undertaken by Des O’Leary and Ric Buckle, and the watching brief work in 2011 wasundertaken by Caroline Raynor. We would like to thank David Higgins for his specialist report onthe clay pipes, and he is particularly grateful to Dr Susie White, who prepared the archival pipeillustrations, also to Bert van der Lingen, Ruud Stam and Jan van Oostveen from the Netherlands fortheir comments on the decorated Dutch stem. The stratigraphic analysis was undertaken by VixHughes and Caroline Raynor, who also compiled the historical research, the report being compiledby Nick Johnson and Caroline Raynor. The drawings were produced by Anne Stewardson andCaroline Raynor. The report was edited by Rachel Newman and Jamie Quartermaine, who alsomanaged the fieldwork, the post-excavation process being managed by Jamie Quartermaine andMurray Cook.



1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PROJECT

1.1.1 Following the submission of planning applications for mixed use development at MannIsland (centred on SJ 3403 9008; Fig 1) by Countryside Neptune in July 2006, OxfordArchaeology North (OA North) was appointed to undertake the archaeological works tomeet the condition attached to planning approval. This involved, initially, a building surveyof the Transit Shed and Voss Garage buildings which stood on the site, then an evaluationof the survival of below-ground archaeological remains, after which watching briefs andlarge-scale excavations were undertaken, as appropriate, following the demolition of thesebuildings on the archaeologically sensitive areas of the site. The development area lieswithin the Maritime Mercantile City of Liverpool World Heritage Site, and within theAlbert Dock Conservation Area (Liverpool City Council 2005, 54); World Heritage Site(WHS) status was granted in 2004. Within the WHS area, the buried archaeologicaldeposits are regarded as ‘a nationally significant resource’, which is ‘highly fragile andvulnerable to damage and destruction’ (op cit, 99).

1.1.2 The archaeological sensitivity of the area had previously been highlighted by a desk-basedassessment (Wardell Armstrong 2006), and the purpose of commissioning OA North wasto mitigate any adverse effect that construction might have on the cultural heritage of thispart of Liverpool. The development is focused on two sites on either side of the remains ofGeorge’s Dock Passage, at the northern end of the present Canning Dock (Figs 1 and 2);one site (Areas A and C) was centred on the former Transit Shed and Voss Garage, and theother (Area B) on the site of the former Media House, adjacent to The Strand. Theevaluation of the site (OA North 2006a) identified the survival of Manchester Dock,warehouses under the Transit Shed, which correspond to the former area of Nova Scotia,and cobbled surfaces and structures relating to the remains of the Mersey RailwayPumping and Ventilation Station and the Dock Police Station at the Media House site.Nova Scotia and Mann Island are historically significant areas of Liverpool, which werecreated as a result of extensive land reclamation, to provide docks and warehousing,existing from c 1740 to the wholesale destruction of the area in 1920 (Ritchie-Noakes1984). These two areas represented a central hub within the early dock system, wherevictuallers, merchants, artisans and sailors congregated to provide the necessary skills andsupplies vital to the early mercantile endeavours of the city (Belchem 2006).

1.1.3 Certain areas of the site were found to be archaeologically sterile, these areas largelycorresponding to the infilling en masse of earlier docks and dock passages, such asManchester Dock and George’s Dock Passage, as both were infilled with sterile quarrieddeposits. This report and the preceding post-excavation assessment report (OA North2010a) present the results of the building survey, archaeological evaluation, excavation,and watching briefs, undertaken over the period 2006–11, following the analysis of thematerial excavated.



1.2 SITE LOCATION, TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY

1.2.1 The site lies on 1.1ha of reclaimed land, at Mann Island, south of the Port of LiverpoolBuilding, north of Canning Dock, east of the new Museum of Liverpool, and west of theformer Mersey shoreline, which is marked today by the course of The Strand (Fig 2). Forthe purposes of the archaeological excavation, the site was sub-divided into three smaller‘sites’ or areas, Areas A–C (Fig 3), which represent the key locations of the excavations.The site was bounded to the south and west by the new Liverpool Canal Link, developedby British Waterways in 2008. This project now provides 1.4 miles of new navigablewaterway, as well as incorporating existing elements of the historic dock system. As such,it required a series of archaeological investigations along the length of the development,extending from the western wall of Canning Dock, the length of the Pier Head to the westof the Three Graces (Port of Liverpool Building, Cunard Building and Liver Building), andon to Princes Dock, Princess Half Tide Basin, Waterloo, Trafalgar, Victoria and NelsonDocks (Mann Canal, OA North 2011a; Pier Head Canal Link, OA North 2011b; andCentral Docks, OA North 2011c).

1.2.2 Mann Island is part of the Maritime Mercantile City of Liverpool World Heritage Site (Fig1), and was reclaimed from the river in the mid-eighteenth century (Section 2.2); it nowforms a uniform plateau, at 6m OD. Prior to demolition works in 2007, much of thedevelopment area consisted of upstanding buildings of various ages and functions. Theremainder of the site consisted of open plots of land sited within the footprint of the infilledManchester Dock, which were used as car parks. The buildings included twentieth-centurystructures, such as the Voss Garage, which was a steel-framed commercial structure,designed in the style of Herbert Rouse (R G McDonald pers comm), in order tocomplement the nearby Mersey Tunnel Ventilation Building. There were also olderbuildings, that included a dock transit shed and the tower of the pumping and ventilationstation (Listed Building no 359069) constructed to serve a subterranean railway in 1886(Duffy 2003, 55). An archaeological building survey was carried out on the older structuresbefore their demolition (OA North 2007). The pumping station has been left in-situ and hasbeen incorporated into the new development.

1.2.3 The drift geology of this part of Liverpool includes alluvium and intermixed silts and sandsalong the estuarine margins of the Mersey, which used to reach as far east as The Strand(Philpott 1999). Reclamation at Mann Island commenced with works to enable theconstruction of the Dry Dock, from 1738 onwards, and were recorded in the Minutes forthe Common Council of Liverpool Docks (MDHB/MP/25, 50; Hyde 1971, 74–5; Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 27).

1.3 PREVIOUS WORK

1.3.1 An environmental statement was prepared by Wardell Armstrong on behalf of CountrysideNeptune llp and British Waterways, in which the archaeological value of the remains ofdock and sea walls, and ancillary structures, was recognised (Wardell Armstrong 2006). In2006, OA North was instructed by Wardell Armstrong, on behalf of Countryside Neptunellp, and commissioned by British Waterways and Galliford Try, to undertake a programmeof archaeological evaluation in advance of the then proposed construction in the area ofMann Island. A project design was formulated to meet the requirements of the MerseysideArchaeologist, and the work formed a continuation of similar investigations that were



undertaken as part of the Liverpool Canal Link project (OA North 2006b; OA North 2011a;OA North 2011b). A survey of the transit shed and Voss Motors buildings was undertakenin 2006, and provided a mitigative record of the structures to enable their demolition inadvance of the redevelopment (OA North 2007).

1.3.2 The first phase of the below-ground archaeological investigation, within the area occupiedby the Mann Island development, consisted of the excavation of four evaluation trenches(Trenches 1, 3A, 3B and 4), beginning in February 2006. The evaluation successfullyidentified the substantive survival of Manchester Dock, along with the remains ofwarehouses under the transit shed, and cobbled surfaces and structures at the Media Housesite (OA North 2006a).

1.3.3 The report on the evaluation (ibid) made specific proposals for future archaeologicalworks, encompassing a range of strategies appropriate to the significance of thearchaeological remains likely to be encountered in different areas of the developmentfootprint. A revised project design for further excavation and a watching brief was issuedin late 2006 (OA North 2006c).



2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 PROJECT DESIGN

2.1.1 Following a request from Wardell Armstrong and Countryside Neptune 11p, a ProjectDesign was developed (OA North 2006c), outlining methodologies designed to mitigatethe impact on archaeological remains revealed as part of the demolition programme andduring the course of construction works at Mann Island. Building on the EnvironmentalStatement (Wardell Armstrong 2006), and the results of the evaluation (OA North 2006a),the significance of the archaeological features known, and thought to be preserved, wasassessed, and appropriate levels of investigation and recording were specified.

2.1.2 The overall aim of the mitigating works was to provide an appropriate, specialist responseto known or newly discovered archaeological remains during the course of constructionworks, including the recording of archaeological and structural features, with particularattention paid to those features considered significant, such as the dock and sea walls, andremains of early buildings. This would serve the aim of enhancing knowledge about thedevelopment of the Liverpool docks and associated areas of the waterfront, includingdomestic activity (Wardell Armstrong 2005).

2.1.3 A series of research questions was formulated:

• what techniques were employed in the construction of the various docks, and wereparticular techniques characteristic of a specific engineer?

• what is the evidence for earlier dock structures?

• what is the evidence for earlier sea walls?

• what is the evidence for buildings associated with the docks, and ancillary fittingsand furniture?

• what is the evidence for the development of trade and industry in post-medievalLiverpool, and its associated infrastructure?

• how can the evidence further our understanding of the social history of post-medieval Liverpool?

2.2 EXCAVATION AND WATCHING BRIEF

2.2.1 The results of the evaluation (OA North 2006a) had indicated the widespread survival ofarchaeological material relatively close to the present ground surface. Between May 2007and May 2008, a programme of larger-scale excavation and watching briefs wasundertaken, occupying three principal areas, A–C (Fig 3), and followed by furtherwatching brief work in July 2009 and May 2011 in the area of Area A (OA North 2011d).

2.2.2 The recording sheets for field records utilised a format acceptable to the Institute forArchaeologists (IfA 2008), a unique alpha-numeric project code being applied to allrecords. All archaeological features were accurately located on a site plan and recorded byphotographs, scale drawings and written descriptions. The evaluation trenches and open-



area excavations were accurately surveyed, tied into the Ordnance Survey (OS) datum, andlocated on an up-to-date 1:1250 OS map base. Artefacts were retained for processing andanalysis. An extensive digital and analogue photograph archive was built up, recording theprogress of the excavations and details of significant features. The resulting artefactual,paper and digital archive has been prepared for deposition in accordance with the aims andobjectives set out in the assessment report (OA North 2010a, 16).

2.3 UPDATED PROJECT AIMS

2.3.1 The assessment (OA North 2010a) updated and added to the original research aims andobjectives. These were formulated in accordance with the guidance of English Heritage(English Heritage 1991, 2–3), and were as follows:

Updated research aim 1: how did the environment of the river Mersey foreshore and itshuman use develop over time?

• Objective 1: to examine the early environment of the river Mersey, including evidencefor early sea level and vegetational changes;

• Objective 2: to examine the nature of post-medieval exploitation of the river Mersey,including evidence for the changing shoreline and land surfaces.

Updated research aim 2: how did the layout and character of the site develop through thepost-medieval period?

• Objective 1: to characterise the nature of the main phases of activity via theirstratigraphy and to detail the archaeological formation of the site;

• Objective 2: to determine the phasing of the structures on the site to set its developmentwithin an historical context.

Updated research aim 3: what is the evidence for the development of trade and industry inpost-medieval Liverpool, and its associated infrastructure?

• Objective 1: to examine the contribution of the docks to the development ofLiverpool’s production, industry, trade and transport.

• Objective 2: to explore the evidence from the site for the rise of consumerism.

• Objective 3: to integrate evidence for the wider development of transport and industrialinfrastructure in Liverpool with the evidence for goods, trades and services provided bythe artefacts and structures located by the excavation.

Updated research aim 4: how can the evidence further our understanding of the socialhistory of post-medieval Liverpool?

• Objective 1: to use historical archaeological methods to study ‘the poor’ or ‘theinarticulate’ (Ascher 1974), ie those invisible in the documentary record.

Updated research aim 5: what evidence is there for developments in engineering andmethodology in Liverpool’s ‘dock system’?

• Objective 1: to detail the construction methods and materials, including adaptations andrebuilds, for all the maritime features within the site.



• Objective 2: to investigate the ‘dock system’, its development and use, examining theevidence for the Liverpool docks and those in other global port cities.

2.4 THE ARTEFACTS

2.4.1 The assessment (OA North 2010a) confirmed the likely value of post-excavation analysison specific categories of finds, including the pottery, the ceramic building material, theclay tobacco pipe, the metalwork, the glass and the animal bone. Each category wasanalysed by a specialist, with the aim of extracting the information anticipated by theassessment, and in accordance with the methodologies outlined in that document (ibid).

2.5 ARCHIVE

2.5.1 A full archive, produced to professional standards, has been prepared, in accordance withEnglish Heritage guidelines (English Heritage 1991) and both Environmental standards forthe permanent storage of excavated material from archaeological sites (UKIC 1984,Conservation Guidelines 3) and the Guidelines for the Preparation of Excavation Archivesfor Long Term Storage (Walker 1990), now that the project is complete. The projectarchive collates and indexes all the data and material gathered during the course of theproject. The deposition of a properly ordered and indexed project archive in an appropriaterepository is considered an essential and integral element of all archaeological projects bythe IfA in that organisation’s code of conduct. The archive will be deposited with NationalMuseums Liverpool, which meets the criteria of the Museums, Libraries and ArchivesCouncil for the long-term storage of archaeological material (Museums and GalleriesCommission 1992).

2.5.2 Structural and Stratigraphic Data: the context record generated by the excavation, whichforms part of the site archive, describes 1219 contexts in total. The archive of primary fielddrawings and photographs comprises the following:

Multiple context CAD survey files 333

Monochrome film images 4952

Colour slides 4940Medium-format images 90

Digital images 48862.5.3 The digital data have been temporarily stored on the server at OA North, which is backed

up on a daily basis. CDs are being used for long-term storage of the digital data, thecontent including the reports, plans, scanned images and digital photographs. Each CD isfully indexed and is accompanied by the relevant metadata for provenance.

2.5.4 The Finds: all dry and stable finds have been packed according to the Museum’sspecifications, in either acid-free cardboard boxes, or in airtight plastic boxes for unstablematerial. Each box has a list of its contents and in general contains only one type ofmaterial, such as pottery or glass.

2.5.5 The assemblage is currently well-packaged, and box lists derived from the site databasehave been compiled. The paper records are in acid-free storage, fully indexed, and with the



contents labelled.

2.6 RECIPIENT MUSEUM

2.6.1 National Museums Liverpool is a group of eight museums in Liverpool, including theMerseyside Maritime Museum and the Museum of Liverpool Life. The main museum hasbeen nominated as having the capacity to co-ordinate the deposition of the finds and thepaper and electronic archive. Paper and digital copies of issued reports will be depositedwith the Liverpool Record Office.Site Codes: MI06 and MI07.

National Museums Liverpool, William Brown Street, Liverpool, L3 8EN. Contact: LizStewart. Tel 0151 207 0001 (switchboard).

Liverpool Record Office, Central Library, William Brown Street, Liverpool, L3 8EW. Tel0151 233 5817.

2.7 DISCARD POLICY

2.7.1 A Discard Policy has been prepared, in consultation with the recipient museum, NationalMuseums Liverpool. Material of no discernible long-term archaeological potential hasbeen discarded, with the Museum’s agreement.



3. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

3.1 LIVERPOOL’S EARLY HISTORY AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OLD DOCK

3.1.1 The docks at Liverpool have come to define the core element of the city's developmentfrom a quiet fishing town, initially recognised as a Royal Borough in a charter of 1207, toone of the most strategically crucial commercial hubs of the British Empire in theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Belchem 2006). The name ‘Liuerpol’ is firstmentioned in a charter of 1190–4, where it is one of several vills, or townships, forming thehundred of West Derby (Nicholson 1981; Belchem 2006, 59). Prior to the rise ofLiverpool, the premier port for the North West was Chester, on the river Dee, but by theend of the medieval period, this was suffering severe problems from the silting of the river.Liverpool’s initial development, however, can be attributed to the intervention of KingJohn, who required a base for military operations in Ireland, and in 1207 he madeLiverpool a borough, granting it urban status. The settlement then consisted of six streets,later seven, when Castle Street was laid out in c 1235 (Belchem 2006, 61). The town waspositioned next to the Pool, a prominent topographical feature and natural inlet whichserved as the port, where ships could be beached at low water and cargo unloaded beneaththe castle, and small ships could be careened and repaired (op cit, 63). The Pool wasawkward to enter from the Mersey, a river with a considerable tidal range, of c 10m, andrapid currents, which were to present challenges in both dock construction andmaintenance, from the beginning of the eighteenth century onward. During the seventeenthcentury, sluices had been installed in the Pool, probably to provide a means of scouring outaccumulations of silt and to maintain an open channel for ships (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 18).After the English Civil Wars, in the middle years of that century, there was a considerableincrease and diversification in the goods traded, both into and out of the port, as a result ofthe development of colonies in the New World. The port’s status rose as a result, finallyallowing Liverpool to acquire its own Custom House in 1700, which meant fullindependence from Chester (Hyde 1971, 9). This rise may also be deduced from records ofshipbuilding on the margins of the Pool in the last two decades of the seventeenth century(Stewart-Brown 1932, 89–92).

3.1.2 Two key attributes conferred distinct advantages on Liverpool from the late seventeenthcentury, when England was poised for significant growth in overseas trade (Jackson 1983,24). Firstly, its position on the west coast allowed easy access to the Atlantic Ocean and itsmerchants were also not constrained by precedent, guilds or chartered companies, but werewilling to seek new markets and employ new methods; indeed, they had already developedexperience in trade in the Irish market (Jackson 1983, 27–8; Belchem 2006, 118). Theseattributes created a potent mix with two recent developments: the establishment of newcolonies across the Atlantic, including the take-over of those originally occupied by theDutch; and the availability of new commodities to trade, such as tobacco, sugar, and thenew lightweight cloths, alongside the increased availability of older products, such as saltand coal (Jackson 1983, 25). However, even at this stage, it was not clear exactly how largea portion of this burgeoning trade Liverpool might hope to receive without the appropriateprovision for an increasingly large volume of shipping. This pronounced surge in shipping,coupled with the problems implied by the sluices in the Pool (Section 3.1.1), and theshortage of space and draught in the Pool to accommodate new trade and new, larger,



transatlantic ships, undoubtedly fostered much concern to find a solution. In 1699, theCommon Council of Liverpool, the majority of whom were already established asmerchants and traders, convened to consider what improvements and management of thewaterfront and Pool would be appropriate to encourage and promote growth and securefuture trade (MDHB/MP/25, 2). At the start of the eighteenth century, discussions wereopened between the Council, and the prominent engineer, George Sorocold, who wasestablished as a civil engineer with experience of constructing military docks in London,notably the Howland Dock at Rotherhithe. The aim was to develop an enclosed dockwithin the area of the Pool (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 19). While this was a considerableinnovation, it is important to recognise that it was driven by the needs of traders, ratherthan speculation: dock-building was expensive and, for years to come, was directed atexisting, rather than future trade (Jackson 1983, 46). With the sponsorship of two leadingLiverpool merchants and MPs, Thomas Johnson and Richard Norris, a Dock Act waspassed by Parliament in 1709, permitting the Liverpool Council to proceed andempowering them as the trustees of the dock to levy dues on the ships entering the harbour.Shortly afterwards, the process of raising the necessary finance to construct what becameknown as the Old Dock was initiated (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 19; Belchem 2006, 121–2).

3.1.3 The man appointed to build the dock, a civil engineer named Thomas Steers, began theconstruction process in 1710. Steers probably worked alongside George Sorocold at theHowland Dock and so came to Liverpool with a level of experience and knowledge whichwould have been vital to the success of this ambitious project (Stewart-Brown 1932). Theconstruction process and methods were not recorded in detail at the time, and only limitedmention is made to the building of the dock in the records of the Common Council;however, the position of the dock in relation to the shoreline of the Pool shows that itsbrick walls were constructed below the high-tide mark and the bedrock at the shoreline wasworked by masons to provide an adequate shelf upon which to site the dock wall (OANorth 2010b). The construction of the retaining walls allowed the reclamation of the landbehind them, to be developed as a quayside. The long axis of the dock was orientatedeast/west, measuring 179m long by approximately 85m wide, and covering an area of13,750 sqm. Chadwick’s map of 1725 (Fig 4) indicates the presence of a small octagonalentrance basin, along with a Graving Dock to the north; however, it is not clear at whatprecise date, between 1710 and 1725, these were constructed. The sea walls shown on thismap to the west of these features, and the land immediately behind them, marked the firststage in a series of expansions out into the Mersey, both further west and to the north andsouth, over the next 180 years (Jarvis 1991a, 230–4). Initially, Nova Scotia and then MannIsland were formed by this reclamation in the mid-eighteenth century, as shown on bothJohn Eyes’ map of 1765 (Fig 5) and Perry’s Map of 1769 (Fig 6).

3.1.4 The Old Dock opened in 1715; the Minutes of the Common Council, however, suggest thatthose elements that would have completed the dock were still not in place by as late as1731. The records of 5th January 1731 state that ‘... all monies raised by leasing the groundaround the dock be applied to finishing the dock’ (MDHB/MP/25, 32). Further to this, therecords from 1726 onwards make it abundantly apparent that the Old Dock was alreadyproving to be problematic from the perspective of maintenance, as it was prone to silting,which dramatically reduced the depth of the basin, causing problems for the passage oflarger vessels.

3.1.5 In 1724, author, traveller and social commentator Daniel Defoe engaged in his tour of the



British Isles, which resulted in an epistolary narrative, published in 1726 under the title, ATour Through the Whole Island of Great Britain. Defoe visited Liverpool three times: in1680, 1690 and again following the opening of the Old Dock in 1724. He consideredLiverpool to be ‘one of the wonders of Britain...’ and commented on the changes which hadbeen wrought to the town since the time of his previous visits:

‘... the town was, at my first visiting it, about the year 1680, a large handsome, well builtand increasing or thriving town. At my second visit, anno 1690, it was much bigger that atmy first seeing it, and, by the report of the inhabitants, more than twice as big as it wastwenty years before that; but I think, I may safely say at this my third seeing it, for I wassurprised at the view, it was more than double what it was at the second; and I am told thatit still visibly increases both in wealth, people, business and buildings. What it may grow toin time, I know not’ (Defoe 1726, 541).

3.1.6 Defoe also states that the town had an opulent, flourishing and increasing trade, althoughhe goes on to emphasise that this trade was not a rival to Bristol (op cit, 541). Defoe'sperceptions were probably accurate at this stage as the Old Dock had only been open forjust over a decade and its full impact was yet to be felt. He goes on to note of the LiverpoolMerchants that, ‘They trade round the whole island [Britain], send ships to Norway, toHamburgh [sic] and to the Baltick [sic], as also to Holland and Flanders; so that in aword, they are almost become like the Londoners, universal merchants’ (ibid). This highpraise indicates that even as early as 1724, the transformation of the developing maritimemercantile town of Liverpool was substantial with a rapid development of infrastructure,including elegant houses and public buildings.

3.2 THE DRY DOCK AND NOVA SCOTIA

3.2.1 Following the completion of the Old Dock, Thomas Steers remained in Liverpool andleased three plots of land along the waterfront, upon which to establish businesses, as wellas taking on the role of Dock Engineer and the first Dock Master. In November 1732,Steers travelled to London and from there onwards to Dover, ‘to view the pier there and toconsider by that what improvement be made to our dock’ (MDHB/MP/25, 35). By 1737,records indicate that the Common Council was under increasing pressure from localmerchants and ship owners to continue the expansion of the dock estate. The entry dated11th January 1737 is strongly worded, stating that ‘It having been heretofore and is nowagain represented to this council that there is an absolute necessity to have an additionmade to the present dock or bason for light ships to lye in whilst refitting and othernecessary uses and a convenient pier to be erected in the open harbour on the north side ofthe entrance into the present dock, towards Red Cross street...’ (op cit, 41).

3.2.2 Thomas Steers was once again called upon to provide a plan and estimate for the workwhich was completed in January 1737, for the much sought-after Dry Dock, explainingthat the new plans for the proposed dock would encompass at least seven acres of wasteground (ibid). In 1738, another act of Parliament authorised the developments which hadbeen petitioned for by local merchants and ship owners (op cit, 73). These initiallyconsisted of further land reclamation, to allow the construction of what was variouslycalled the New Pier, the Dry Pier, and Dry Dock, which extended the area of the entrancebasin and was opened in 1739 (Fig 5; MDHB/MP/25, 53; Hyde 1971, 73–4; Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 21). The minutes of the Common Council of Liverpool Docks indicate to



what extent the Council was able to control activity on the waterfront, particularly relatingto the activities of ships as they entered and departed from the dock. In July 1738, theCommon Council ordered that ships were to discharge their ballast at, and near, the westwall of the intended New Pier (MDHB/MP/25, 50), with fines imposed for contravention.The order for ships to dump ballast at the outside wall of the intended New Pier issignificant, as the repeated dumping of large quantities of ballast (ships of the period weretypically capable of carrying over 50 tons of ballast (Hahn 1981)) in this relatively shallowarea, which was not deeper than 6.2m, would have quickly led to the build-up of a smallisland or bank of unstable land and was the forerunner of the area later known as MannIsland, Nova Scotia and Bird Street.

3.2.3 The Committee of Works for the construction of the Dry Dock and new pier largelycomprised merchants and ship owners, who probably had only a limited knowledge of thetechniques required to construct a new dock. However, Thomas Steers was listed as being amember of the committee and it is likely that he played a key role in the proceedings,ensuring the correct implementation of his design. The committee was not only responsiblefor managing the finances of the project, but was also required to source and purchase thenecessary materials and also a suitably skilled workforce. With this in mind,advertisements were placed in the public newspapers from Chester and Manchester, forpersons willing to undertake mason's work at the New Pier. (MDHB/MP/25, 48). Therecords show that the outward wall of the new pier was constructed by Mr EdwardLitherland, who proposed ‘to undertake the building of said outward wall and to build thesame of Quarry Hill stone at five shillings for every cubical yard sufficiently andworkmanlike and to find all (services excepted)...’ (ibid).

3.2.4 The Dry Dock (Fig 6) was so called because it provided protection for shipping from thewind and the currents of the Mersey, but was nevertheless tidal, and became dry at lowtide. Fundamentally, its construction was intended to ease the threefold constraints ofoperating a sailing vessel: firstly, because it was too hazardous, many merchants did notengage in trade during the winter, and laid up their ships (Jackson 1983, 43); secondly,subtle and adverse variations in tide and wind, inevitably magnified by the funnel shape ofthe Mersey estuary, forced ships to wait for more favourable conditions; and thirdly,because it was only possible to enter the Old Dock at high tide (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 21).Before its construction, the only harbour was provided by the Old Dock itself, whichconsequently became crowded. Its narrow entrance restricted the number of ships whichcould enter and leave on the tide, and the crowding hindered manoeuvring within the dockitself. The presence of a Dry Dock made it easier for ships to leave the Old Dock,alleviating the pressure on space and mitigating against the increased risk of any outbreakof fire spreading from ship to ship when they were moored at close quarters within the OldDock. The addition of a Dry Dock also enhanced and widened the mouth of the Old Dock,making it easier to enter harbour.

3.2.5 In the period between the opening of the Old Dock and the addition of the Dry Dock, therewas relatively little growth in the total tonnage of shipping using the port, with inward andoutward traffic amounting to 36,800 tons in 1716, and only 39,900 tons in 1737 (Hyde1971, 235). Complete figures are not available to allow the calculation of the distributionof this trade between transatlantic ports and more local destinations, such as Ireland. Shipsoperating out of Liverpool were relatively small, however, with transatlantic vessels in therange of 50–200 tons, and many smaller craft were engaged in the inshore trade (Belchem



2006, 116). This contrasts markedly with contemporary Whitby colliers, which wererunning cargoes of c 400 tons south from Newcastle to London (Barker 2011, 119).Nevertheless, the modest increase in annual trade at Liverpool of a little over 3000 tons, orthe equivalent of the cargoes of perhaps 25 vessels, shows that the Dry Dock wasconstructed to aid navigation, rather than ease any restraint on trade.

3.2.6 The facilities at the Dry Dock were augmented between 1740 and 1750, with theimprovements to the area effectively creating land in a prime location for merchant offices,warehouses and dwellings (MDHB/MP/25, 56); these improvements paved the way for thecreation of the area initially known as Nova Scotia (Fig 5). The land was a central hub forvarious activities: production and repair of ships in the Dry Dock to the south; careeningand repair of ships to the west of the Dry Pier, on the graving bank (an area of the riverbank which was accessible at low tide); and also the expansion of business, production andstorage of goods along the eastern quay of the Dry Pier (east of the Dry Dock).

3.2.7 The first phase of augmentation occurred after a meeting of the Common Council on 18th

October 1740, where it was decided that ‘taking into consideration the great necessity ofmaking the new pier useful and to enlarge the same and that the Dry Dock and the groundlying on the west side thereof...’ (MDHB/MP/25, 56). This enlargement of the riversidequay to the west of the Dry Dock ensured the creation of a more useful space, particularlyas a point of disembarkation for cross-river ferries and for smaller boats unloading locallyacquired cargoes, thus helping to reduce the traffic moving in and out of the Old Dock.

3.2.8 On 18th August 1743, Thomas Steers entreated the council to pave the new pier (the areato the east of Nova Scotia). The area on the north side of the Dry Dock had already beensatisfactorily paved by its landowners, Joseph Bird and Owen Pritchard (op cit, 57), whohad, as part of the improvement to the area, and with a view to creating a suitable quay,already paved several feet in front of their properties extending along the length of thequayside. The expansion and paving of the new pier was completed by February 1744 (opcit, 61). The land described in this entry encompasses the area which would first becomeknown as Man's Island or Mann’s Island and Nova Scotia, the heart of ‘sailor town’ (thename applied locally to the central hub of the largely itinerant maritime population), andfuture heart of the local trade to the Wirral, Chester and Manchester.

3.2.9 In 1746, the network of docks was further enhanced by the construction of a new GravingDock, constructed by the Town Corporation, opening off the north quay (Ritchie-Noakes1984, 19; Fig 5). This structure was necessary as a replacement for the original GravingDock, which had been destroyed by the construction of the Dry Dock. Again, this workwas overseen by Thomas Steers, who was supported by a committee of merchants andaldermen. At the same time, it was decided that appropriate dock furniture should beinstalled on the quays, with the addition of two fixed capstans on the north and south piersto facilitate the movement of ships in and out of the Dry Dock. With the installation of thegates between the Dry Dock and the Graving Dock came the first footbridge to link thearea between Joseph Bird's land and the newly expanded quay on the west side of the dock.It seems likely that the northern extent of the Pool was covered over at this time by thedevelopment of Paradise Street, and Whitechapel (Sharples 2004, 7).

3.2.10 From 1747 onwards, traffic within the Dry Dock and the Graving Dock was sufficientlyhigh to warrant the appointment of Alderman Joseph Bird to take account of all the shipsentering and leaving the Dry Dock (MDHB/MP/25, 65). Minutes of the Common Councilsuggest that Bird and Owen Pritchard were the first people to take up residence in the area



following the land reclamation and consolidation to the north-east of the Graving Dock.Both were merchants and slave traders (Williams 1897, 82) with extensive involvement inthe development of the dock network, and Bird sat on the committee formed to oversee theconstruction of the Dry Dock (Ritchie-Noakes 1984). Both were also involved in the earlyestablishment of the Old Dock and the developing dock estate, and served as Aldermenand later as Mayor; Owen Pritchard served as mayor in 1744-5 and Joseph Bird took upthat position for the years 1746-7. Bird also had links to Charles Goore and, along with 20other shareholders, invested a total £2000 (£100 per share, of which many individuals heldhalf shares) in his ship the Golden Lion, which operated as a whaling vessel in the area ofthe Greenland Fisheries (ibid). It is likely that Bird Street, shown on John Eyes’ map of1765 (Fig 5), and Bird’s Slip and Bird Alley, shown on Perry’s map of 1769 (Fig 6), arenamed after him, as the historical directories (Gore 1766).

3.2.11 Joseph Bird is listed in Gore's Directory of 1766 as occupying the area to the east of theGraving Dock (Bird Street), and his name is attached to two properties, one of which washis home and the other a warehouse listed under the name of Bird and Jones, mugwarehousemen. Bird’s Slip, however, lay west of the land originally reclaimed to create theDry Dock, and it is likely that Bird Street was similarly developed some years later,although no historical mapping has been traced for the period 1725–65 that would confirmthis. This was substantially adapted, in the 1760s, to provide a passage within the docksystem, from the South Docks through to the newly constructed George’s Dock furthernorth (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 27).

3.2.12 In 1748, the Common Council ordered that ‘ the ground about the New Pier and dry docksbe sold at public auction in lots according to the plan, proposals and conditions of sale...’and this was followed in 1749 by the addition of a wall and cart road to be constructedfrom the slip on the Dry Pier down to the graving bank (MDHB/MP/25, 69). The presenceof the graving bank is officially noted on the John Eyes’ map of 1765 (Fig 5), and althoughit is mentioned in the records prior to this, it only appears on this single episode ofhistorical mapping, before a further phase of land reclamation, coupled with theconstruction of the Manchester Basin and the Old Quay, rendered it obsolete (Section 4.6).

3.2.13 The expansion of the dock system gained pace with the completion of the Salthouse Dockin 1753 (Ritchie-Noakes 1984), which was again conceived of and designed by ThomasSteers. The construction, however, was completed by Henry Berry, who succeeded Steersas Liverpool’s dock engineer following the former’s death in 1750 (ibid).

3.2.14 In 1754, the Old Dock received its first set of replacement gates, but there are no otherentries from the minutes of the Common Council suggesting that the first dock in thesystem was failing to cope with the increased tonnage of cargo arriving and departing fromLiverpool. In the same year, Joseph Bird was formally appointed as Superintendent of theDry Dock and was awarded a wage of 15 guineas per annum for carrying out this work(MDHB/MP, 82). This role was equivalent to that of the later Dock Master, and Bird's rolewould have included superintending the docking and sailing of ships, appointing themberths within the dock for the receiving and unloading of cargo, and attending to the dockgates, where present.

3.2.15 On 12th June 1757, the Liverpool Chronicle and Marine Gazetteer contained a series ofadverts relating to the sale of three properties at Mann Island, specifically, the area on theeast side of the Graving Dock known as Bird Street. The first is described as: ‘A new wellbuilt messuage or dwelling house situate(d) on the east side of the Graving Dock and



fronting not only said dock but also a street or alley leading to Bird Street; containing tothe front towards the dock about six yards and to the said street or alley about twelve yardsand two feet...’ (op cit, np). This property was previously owned by Mr Thomas Ford, aglazier, held by lease under the Corporation for three lives and 21 years under a smallyearly reserved rent of 3/ 6d.

3.2.16 An additional two properties, both previously belonging to Alderman Owen Pritchard, arealso described as messuages or dwelling houses, with the first being on the east side of theGraving Dock and the second on the west side of Bird Street. Both were to be let for 15/-per annum (Hf 072 CHR 1757). These records provide an insight into the type and size ofdwellings available at Mann Island during its early history.

3.2.17 The map of the area produced by John Eyes in 1765 (Fig 5) provides a clear view of thewaterfront to the north and west of the Dry Dock. The area is defined by the presence ofBird Street, the old Graving Dock, Bird's Alley, New Strand Street, and to the west byNova Scotia. It is likely that Nova Scotia derived its name from the colony in Canada, andit seems there was a close connection with it in the mid-eighteenth century, shown by thefounding of a settlement there named ‘Liverpool’, also on a river Mersey, in 1759. TheNorth American colonies were vital to Britain during the wars with France and Spain in1739-63 (Conway 2006), and it is tempting to see a recognition of this, and the importanceof the west-bound North Atlantic sailing route, in the choice of the name.

3.2.18 Two blocks of buildings and an enclosed area are shown occupying Nova Scotia on Perry'smap of 1769 (Fig 6), along with Bird’s Slip and the land reclamation necessary to permitthe construction, c1746, of a Graving Dock off the north end of the Dry Dock (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 19). Perry’s map also reveals that the northern block of buildings at NovaScotia, shown on John Eyes’ map of 1765 (Fig 5), had been divided by the insertion of astreet, which on later mapping is identified as Irwell Place (for instance, on Gage’s map of1836).

3.2.19 From 1766 onwards, the north-facing aspect of the port underwent radical alterations, withHenry Berry overseeing further expansion of the dock estate. The next major developmentof the docks was the construction of a new sea wall, known as ‘Sea Strand’(MDHB/MP/25, 109), with reclamation behind it, to permit work to build what wasoriginally to be known as the Townside Dock, but would come to be known as St George’sDock (latterly George's Dock). There is very little certain evidence for the condition of theMersey foreshore prior to this, since John Eyes’ map of 1765 interpolates the conjecturedlayout of the new dock into what is otherwise a generally reliable document. The inclusionof proposed works is not an uncommon feature of Liverpool’s historical mapping,particularly at such times of great change and expansion; the Eyes’ map also includes aprojected position and design for a new Graving Dock to the west of the Salthouse (South)Dock, located to the south-west of Mann Island. The construction work immediatelyencountered a number of difficulties, including serious storm damage, which destroyed thenew sea wall, and forced a delay in further works until 1767 (Hyde 1971, 74–5; Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 27). In 1770, the Common Council ordered that a draft view and estimate bemade for enclosing a parcel of land (the area now known as Pier Head) to the west of thenew dock from out of the sea or river (MDHB/MP/25, 109); following this, Henry Berrywas authorised by the council to lease a piece of ground at Quarry Hill to fulfil theconstruction needs of the latest public works (op cit, 109).

3.2.20 The completed dock was opened in 1771 at a cost of £21,000, and despite the expense, this



dock now offered an expansive 2460 square yards (2249.4m) of enclosed water with aquay measuring 700 yards (640m) long (Lewis 1831, 101). The new dock did not standalone at the northern limit of the port as it was paired with a spacious Dry Basin, depictedon the Charles Eyes map of 1785 (Fig 7). In 1775, the Minutes of the Common Councilnote that a committee had been formed to oversee ‘the destroying of one Dry Dock for theuse and making of a passage or entrance from out of the Dry Pier and into the new orGeorge’s Dock’ (MDHB/MP/25, 129), suggesting that the dock was not linked to thesouthern network from the time of its opening and that the southern element of George’sDock passage was established later, by reusing the channel formerly occupied by theGraving Dock at the northern end of Dry Dock (Section 3.2.11; Perry 1769; Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 19, 27). This work was carried out at the same time as the land to the west ofGeorge's Dock was paved to a width of 14 feet (4.26m) to increase the quay and landingspace for goods (MDHB/MP/25, 130).

3.2.21 Along with the construction and expansion of the dock estate, the population living andworking on the newly reclaimed areas of land, particularly those of Nova Scotia, wereexpanding, as trades and businesses established themselves to fulfil the demand of theitinerant population of sailors and merchants using the new facilities. The first availableformal record for the area is Gore's Directory of 1766, although the directories tend only toname the principal person, landowner or leasee associated with a property, and it is notalways clear how many people were domiciled at each residence at any given time. In1766, approximately 25 years after the land had been reclaimed, there were six personslisted as living and working on Bird Street and five persons living and working in NovaScotia. Many of the trades and occupations listed for the residents reflect the nearness ofthe dock and seafaring connections; Robert Breckell was a ship’s carpenter, Thomas Davisa pilot, and John Robinson, an anchor smith.

3.2.22 A mere three years later, Gore’s Directory of 1769 lists 39 persons as living and workingwithin the area of Mann Island, Nova Scotia, Bird Street and the area to the east of the DryDock. This record clearly highlights the types of people and businesses being conducted inthe area, although it does not provide an address for each individual, merely stating whichstreet the person lived/worked on. Persons listed as living in Nova Scotia tend to be thoseinvolved in shipping; for instance, John Bibby and Henry Brewer both resided in NovaScotia and are listed as pilots. William Chapman, a mariner, lived on the west (the NovaScotia side) of the Old Graving Dock, as did Robert Lee, a ship's pilot. Persons living andworking on Bird Street tended to be those employed in trades or manufacture: ThomasClucas (tailor), Cope and Wright (ironmongers), Richard Hill (tobacconist), John Lawrence(flax dresser), and William West (ship's broker) are all listed as residing on Bird Street(Gore 1769). A further three years after this, Gore's Directory of 1772 indicates that thepopulation of the area had increased substantially, with 66 persons and businesses beinglisted for the immediate area around the Dry Dock, Old Graving Dock, Mann Island andNova Scotia.

3.2.23 Increasing populations and the steady increase in new property within the town, includingthe area around the north side of the Dry Dock and Nova Scotia, led, in 1774, to theintroduction of street numbers within Gore's Directories (Table 1). Gore’s Directory of1774 is also very significant because it is the first time that the place name, ‘Mann Island’,appears in any of the contemporary historical sources. Only two persons are listed at MannIsland in 1774: William Jones, a flax dresser, at No 5 Mann Island, and John Mann, an



oilstone dealer (and the gentleman after whom the parcel of land may have been named),living at No 3 Mann Island. Although there are only two persons listed, the fact that theproperties are numbered three and five suggests that numbers one, two and four hadalready been applied to other parcels of land, or that other properties already existed butthe occupants chose not to be included within the directory for that year. Nine people arealso listed as living on Bird Street, four persons at the east side of the Old Graving Dock,one person on the west side of the Graving Dock (adjacent to, but not part of, Nova Scotia)and one person at the northern side of the Dry Dock (east of Bird Street).

Name Address OccupationJohn Barnes Nova Scotia VictuallerHenry Brewer Nova Scotia PilotCaptain William Chapman 1, Nova Scotia Ship’s CaptainG Cherry 8, Nova Scotia Boatman and VictuallerCaptain John Evans 7, Nova Scotia Newry TraderRichard Gore Nova Scotia Not listedDaniel Hadkinson 17, Nova Scotia Liquor merchantWilliam Hall Nova Scotia CarterHind, Wilson and Hopwood 15 Bird's Slip, Nova Scotia Coal OfficeThomas Holt 6, Nova Scotia Flax DresserHunter and Kirkhams 16, Nova Scotia Sail RoomJohn Lacy 5, Nova Scotia Pilot and VictuallerNaylor and Co Nova Scotia Tar warehouseAlice Pilmore 2, Nova Scotia Pilot and VictuallerCaptain Richard Pritchard 7, Nova Scotia Ship’s captainThomas Williams Nova Scotia Not listedEdward Winstanley 14 Bird's Slip, Nova Scotia SmithyThomas Briggs Nova Scotia Coal OfficeCastic Quay office Bird's Slip, Nova Scotia Not listedOld Quay office Bird's Slip, Nova Scotia Not listedTyres and Roberts Bird's Slip, Nova Scotia Coal Office

Table 1: Residents in Nova Scotia listed in the Gore’s Directory of 1774

3.3 MANCHESTER BASIN: LATE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY EXPANSION OF THE QUAYSIDE

3.3.1 The next large addition to this area of waterfront came in the form of the ManchesterBasin, a precursor of the Manchester Dock, which was constructed, probably in the late1770s (Moss and Stammers nd, 17), superseding a pier that was built by Henry Berry onthe site in c 1772 (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 35). The formation of the Basin entailed furtherland reclamation, west of Nova Scotia, which included the enlargement of the GravingDocks on either side of the entrance from the Mersey (Fig 7: Eyes 1785). Initially, thebasin was operated by the Mersey and Irwell Navigation Company, for river traffic, inbarges or ‘flats’, between Manchester and Liverpool (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 35). Theconstruction of Manchester Basin, and the further consolidation of land, also enabled anexpansion in the number of small sailing packets and ferries or wherries using the area ofNova Scotia and Mann Island as a central hub. In 1777, the Dublin packet office receivedthe Duke of Leinster packet into the Manchester Basin, and the Castle Quay office and theOld Quay office both had small boats putting into port in this area to provide services toDublin, the Wirral and Manchester (Gore 1777).



3.3.2 In 1779, further land reclamation took place, creating a projecting pier head, just to thesouth of the entrance to George's Dock Basin (MDHB/MP/25,137), which was probablyintended to create a sheltering promontory to protect the ships as they turned into theopen basin. This was the extent of large-scale works undertaken in 1779, since Britain's,and Liverpool’s, attention then turned towards the American Revolutionary War. Theentries of the Common Council for this time strongly suggest that Liverpool feltthreatened as a prominent west-coast transatlantic port, particularly as Spain had joinedthe war in June 1779, and the Council went to great pains to protect the docks.Gunpowder was acquired and stockpiled, and the George's and Queen's Batteries weremanned. Pilots were sent out into the river to gather intelligence from incoming ships anda light-based warning system was established at Bidstone lighthouse (op cit, 138).

3.3.3 In 1780, the Salem merchant, Samuel Curwen, visited Liverpool en route to a tour of therest of Britain and Europe, and described it as ‘the city so celebrated for its mercantilecharacter...’ (Seed 2008, 2). His diaries illustrate the fact that he held high expectations;however, it is apparent from his subsequent entries that he was disappointed by the townitself, as he describes it as: ‘Houses are by a great majority in middling and low style,few, very few comparatively rise above that mark. Streets long and narrow and crooked,and dirty in an eminent degree. Choosing a small abode here we scarce saw a well-dressed person, nor half a dozen gentlemen... the whole complexion nautical and soinfinitely below all our expectations that naught but the thoughts of the few hours we hadto pass here rendered it tolerable’ (ibid).

3.3.4 Curwen did not specify which streets in Liverpool he was describing; however, it is likelythat he was exposed to the areas around George's Dock, Mann Island and the Old Dock.These areas were overly populous, ill-maintained and represent an area known as ‘Sailor'sTown’ - a place filled with public houses and victuallers to serve the needs of the itinerantmaritime populace. Despite his low opinion of Liverpool, Curwen did describe the docksas being ‘stupendously grand’ (op cit, 2).

3.3.5 Although the war did not end until 1783, the immediate threat to the port of Liverpoolwas perceived as being lessened by 1780 and there is no further mention of its defensiveprocedures in the records. By 1781, small shipping companies operating from MannIsland and Nova Scotia were firmly established. Captain Joseph Connor had an office atPacket House, 12 Nova Scotia (the northern end of the block forming the core of NovaScotia and identifiable on Horwood’s Map of 1803: Fig 8), from which all the departuresof the Dublin Packets were overseen. Arrayed along the Old Quay at Nova Scotia werethe boat houses which served the local ferries; the Rock boathouse was operated byJoseph Williams, the New Ferry boathouse by Mrs Cherry and the Woodside boathouseby Mrs Barton (Gore 1781, 132).

3.3.6 Additions to the waterfront were, by this time, becoming more specialist, with boatsbeing assigned to berths in docks based on their cargo type and which region they hadsailed from (trades at the time included the Coastal, Irish, Transatlantic or LevantineTrade). This type of specialisation, and the need to maximise the efficiency of theexisting dock space, led to work being carried out on the Manchester Basin in 1785 (Fig7). Originally, this tidal basin lacked gates and was left dry at low tide. At high tide,however, the walls and the Old Quay were swamped, as the basin itself was too shallowand the walls too low to accommodate the high tidal range of the river appropriately. Inorder to deal with this, it was ordered that the heights of the wall be raised to prevent



flooding (MDHB/MP/25, 147).

3.3.7 The Liverpool Directory for the year 1790, produced by Charles Wosencroft, a printerbased on Cook Street, provides a list of shipping businesses and packets operating fromNova Scotia (Table 2) and the Manchester Old Quay. The largest of these was the DublinPacket Office run by William Charles Lake, who was operating seven Dublin Packets.

Ship CaptainDuke of Leinster John BuahSt Patrick John BaselyHibernia James HayesViceroy William WoodPrince of Orange William LetmanEarl of Charlemont James CaneHawke James Sibbald

Table 2: Ships berthing in the Manchester Basin, based on the Liverpool Directory of1790

3.3.8 The historical mapping outlines several further developments at the turn of the nineteenthcentury, which are not otherwise recorded. A map of 1795, by an unknown cartographer(produced for The Strangers Guide to Liverpool by William Moss), shows that there hadbeen a small amount of further reclamation of land on the north side of Manchester Basin.This expanded the area of the Manchester Old Quay and was undertaken at the same timeas the construction of the Chester Basin. The presence of the Chester Basin is indicated asan open channel of water to the north of the Manchester Basin on the 1795 map, theambiguous shape suggesting that it was probably incomplete at the time that the map wasdrawn. It is not known for certain who was responsible for the design of the Chester Basin,but it was possibly Thomas Morris, who replaced Henry Berry as Dock Engineer after hisresignation on 19th February 1789 (op cit, 160); Morris served as Dock Engineer until1799. The completed structure was a small elegant basin, the shape and fabric of whichcomplemented the early layout of the Manchester Basin. This reclamation was followed bya more substantial one, such that Horwood’s map of 1803 (Fig 8) shows a sizeable pier inthe same location, extending far to the west of the alignment of the seawall associated withGeorge’s Dock. The same map demonstrates that the basin had a layout more closelycoincident with that of Manchester Dock, although it retained its wide entrance (and wasnamed ‘Manchester Bay’). Further reclamation was indicated by the position of the seawall on the 1850 Ordnance Survey map relative to Horwood’s map of 1803.

3.3.9 A descriptive paragraph in Gore's Directory of 1796 explains that ‘the extent of the quaysof the wet and dry docks alone is upward of 3 miles, independent of the Graving Docks,piers and outside quays, which are nearly four miles more. These docks, though capable ofaccommodating a most prodigious number of vessels, are yet hardly sufficient for theincreasing trade of the town and others are said to now be in contemplation’ (Gore 1796,195).

3.3.10 The ambiguity created by the rapid developments on the site of Manchester Dock, and thevariations in its portrayal on the historical maps, make it uncertain when the extant walls ofthe dock were constructed. On this basis, it appears likely that Manchester Dock post-datesthese, although it may incorporate some of the earlier walling of Manchester Basin. Thesource of the pink sandstone is not known, although Prince’s Dock, under construction



from c 1810, used stone from quarries at Runcorn (Jarvis 1991b, 12).

3.3.11 Attributing numbers to properties within the areas of Mann Island, Nova Scotia, IrwellStreet and the Old Quay, in order to relate these to listings within the directories, isproblematic, as the numbering system was altered through the years. Within Mann Islandand Nova Scotia, these changes probably came about as a result of the numeroussubdivisions and alterations to properties which may have once existed as a single entity orbusiness premise. However, the Horwood map of 1803 (Fig 8) shows the detailed extent ofsmall residences at the southern end of Nova Scotia within the footprint of the third(southernmost) block and includes the numbers 1 to 12 for the row of small dwellings ormessuages (Table 3).

Address Names/ Residents Employment or Trade1 Nova Scotia Lake and Brown Packet Office2 Nova Scotia George Berry Victualler3 Nova Scotia Not listed -4 Nova Scotia John Maddock,

James ReidWoodside Boat HouseVictualler

5 Nova Scotia Catherine Hughes Joiner and Victualler6 Nova Scotia Catherine Bennett Victualler7 Nova Scotia Not listed -8 Nova Scotia Not listed -9 Nova Scotia Ann Cooson Victualler10 Nova Scotia Not listed -11 Nova Scotia Mary Barnes Victualler12 Nova ScotiaDublin Packet House

William Thomas Victualler and operator of theDublin Packet House

13 Nova Scotia Richard Parry Boatman14 Nova Scotia William Winstanley Blacksmith15 Nova Scotia William Glass Cooper16 Nova ScotiaOld Quay Office

?? Wright and JohnDavies

Merchants and agents to theManchester Old Quay Company

17 Nova Scotia Cuthbert Kirkham Sail Room

Table 3: List of residents and businesses for Nova Scotia, taken from Gore’s Directoryof 1803

3.3.12 Other persons listed as residing at Nova Scotia in 1800, but without a specific numberbeing attributed to their property, include: Brooke, Owen and Barrow, Salt warehouse;James Fraser of the Ravenhead Coal Office; Joseph Hayes, block and pump maker;Hornby Corder and Company, Corn Merchants; James Percival, Brass and CopperMerchants; Nathaniel Rimmers’ Sail room; Cooper, John Willacy; and John Stephens,Agent to the Parys Mine Company (Gore 1803).

3.4 MANCHESTER AND CANNING DOCKS: NINETEENTH-CENTURY IMPROVEMENTS TO THEQUAYSIDE

3.4.1 The most significant modifications to Manchester Basin were to turn it into ManchesterDock, which entailed the narrowing of the entrance, shown on Cole’s map of 1807, and theinstallation of lock gates. Recent documentary analysis by National Museums Liverpool(M Adams pers comm) has been able to confirm that the lock gates were in position by1807, in contrast to the date of c 1815 suggested by Ritchie-Noakes (1984, 35). Trade



through the dock, in coal and manufactured goods westwards, and corn and cotton inland,amounted to 1000 tons per day in the early nineteenth century (op cit, 36).

3.4.2 The historical mapping (Fig 9) shows that the construction of ancillary buildings followedsoon after the dock gained its gates, and a range of offices, warehouses and agents’residences was established along its north side, forming the ‘Old Quay Wharf’. Awarehouse was built in the yard of the Mersey and Irwell Navigation Company, whichoverhung the east end of the dock, and provided two covered loading bays (Fig 10; Kaye1816; OS 1850; Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 35).

3.4.3 In 1807, an Act of Parliament, entitled An Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade (47ºGeorge III, session I, cap XXXVI), was passed, and with this the slave trade was‘abolished and prohibited and declared to be unlawful’ (ibid). Many merchants operating inLiverpool asserted that the town would be ruined by the process of abolition (Clarkson1830, 39); however, Liverpool, despite being heavily involved in the slave trade, hadsuitably diverse interests abroad to ensure that the development of the port continuedalmost unimpeded.

3.4.4 Very little remained static on the waterfront, and amendments and alterations to existingdocks, as well as the construction of new ones, continued. The building of the Prince'sDock began in 1810; however, its construction came at a difficult time and it took over 21years from the inception of the plans to the final completion of the structure (Jarvis 1991a,230). The dock was designed by consultation, with dock engineers William Jessop andJohn Rennie (Jarvis 1996, 14), both of whom were aware of the problems of silting in theolder docks, as well as fundamental issues relating to the integrity of the retaining walls(op cit, 14). In particular, there was a substantial drain on resources caused by theNapoleonic Wars, which hampered construction work. By the time the dock was completedin 1821, the dock was most noted for being the only one in the system to be enclosed by asecure walled compound, but this was later to become a standard feature as the dock estatecontinued to expand northwards.

3.4.5 The Dry Dock was modified during the late 1820s to form Canning Dock (Fig 9), a gatedwet dock, which opened in 1829 and reused some sections of the original walling, althoughthe angle to the south-east and the location of the northern wall was altered and movedfurther southwards (Section 2.2.23; Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 41). A half-tide basin, to extendthe period when ships could enter and leave the dock system, was constructed in theposition of the former Dock Gut (Perry 1769) and was opened in 1844 (Ritchie-Noakes1984, 41). The majority of the development of the dock estate following this took placefurther north from Mann Island.

3.4.6 One of the most significant landmark events on the waterfront was that Thomas Steers' OldDock was closed in 1826. In comparison to the later docks, particularly those north ofMann Island, the Old Dock was by that date land-locked and deemed to be too small andtoo prone to silting to warrant remaining as an integral part of the dock system. The firstmention of issues to do with silting appears in the Minutes of Common Council in 1726,and in 1736, John Martindale was officially contracted to clean silt from the dock basin,indicating that this had been a problem, almost from the time of the dock’s construction(MDHB/MP/25, 39). The closure and infilling of the dock removed a potential fire hazard,and also a hygiene hazard, as it had been a popular dumping ground for waste and sewagefrom the old town, with an open sewer and sluice being added to the north-east corner ofthe dock prior to it being infilled (OA North 2010b). In addition, it freed up additional land



for reclamation at the centre of the developing town, where space was now at a premium.The newly acquired land was given over to the construction of a new Custom House, agrand edifice, designed in neo-classical style by John Foster Junior (Sharples 2004, 15).

3.4.7 Throughout this period of great change and upheaval, the historical mapping suggests thatthe outlines of the buildings occupying the ground between Manchester Dock and DryDock, at Nova Scotia and Mann Island, remained mostly unaltered, although the internalsubdivisions of the space changed considerably at the northern end, between 1769 and1803 (Perry 1769; Figs 6 and 8). At the southern end of the site, there was considerablechange between 1803 and 1836 (Gage 1836; Fig 9), with the complete removal of a terraceof housing (shown in 1803; Fig 8), and the development of a double row of warehouses(Fig 9).

3.4.8 Nova Scotia and Mann Island were occupied from the earliest period following the landreclamation in 1740, until demolition in the early twentieth century, by a mixture ofworking-class dwellings, warehouses, manufactories and public houses (Stammers 1999,62 and 101). The north/south road to the west was named Irwell Street in c 1820 (Swire1823), after the Mersey and Irwell Navigation Company, which used Manchester Dock,immediately adjacent. Additional streets in the area were named Irwell Place and MurrayPlace, with the name Nova Scotia continuing in use, but at this time being used to defineonly the area of quay immediately adjacent to the southern extent of George's Dockpassage.

3.4.9 By contrast, in the late 1820s, the area east of George’s Dock Passage was substantiallyaltered, buildings and streets being swept away, to allow for the construction of theWeighing Machine and Dock Police Central Office (Fig 10; also home to the MarineSurveyor’s offices and subsequently used as the Harbour Master's Office), as shown onGage’s map of 1836 (Fig 9) and the Ordnance Survey 1:1056 Town Plan of 1850 (Fig 10).The Liverpool City Police was founded in 1836, seven years after the Metropolitan PoliceAct of June 1829 (Belchem 2006). However, prior to this, a City Watch Committee hadsuccessfully operated the organisation of the policing of the town, waterfront and river. Atthe beginning of 1836, Liverpool had a daytime constabulary force of 54 men, anindependent Dock Police Force and a force of 163 night watchmen, not including thepeople who operated the Bridewells (the term used for the police station and detentionfacilities; ibid). The closest Bridewell to the dock estate was at 17 Argyle Street, justbehind the former site of the Old Dock, although this was not constructed until 1861 (ibid).

3.4.10 The creation of police stations on the waterfront frequently served a dual function, as thepolice and fire service was, at this time, one unit, the dock and town police being a singlebody before 1845, overseen by the Watch Committee. The preliminary construction of thedock estate boundary wall, which began with the enclosure of the Princes Dock in the1820s, provided small lock-ups along the length of the waterfront, as the northern tower ofeach stone gate pier was fitted out to operate as a temporary holding cell (LCC 2005). Theprincipal role of the police on the waterfront was to prevent plunder and disorder, and toensure that the relevant import duties were paid, as well as to enforce the numerous rulesand regulations which surrounded a ship putting into port. The 1845 ParliamentaryGazetteer of England and Wales states that the laws relative to the Port are ‘ two hoursbefore and one hour after high water there shall be an efficient person on the deck of everyvessel in the docks, basins etc; that the anchor and stock shall be on deck; that the jibboom shall be run in; that no fire or lighted candle shall be suffered on board any of the



vessels without permission, granted in cases of necessity, under the care of a policeman;that no article shall be suffered to lie upon any of the dock quays, whether landed from avessel or for shipment, more than forty-eight hours’ (Anon 1845, 143).

3.4.11 With such a comprehensive and stringent set of rules surrounding the operation of the docksystem, there was a requirement for a central police station to serve the dock. It appears,from archived records of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, that the design for theDock Police Office was originally put forward by Jesse Hartley in the 1830s. A revised, butalmost identical, set of plans and elevations was redrawn and reissued by George Lysterafter Jesse Hartley had retired due to ill health. The original plans might not have beencompleted until Lyster was in office as Dock Surveyor (MDHB/JH/117); however, it isclear that a version of the building was in place by at least 1836, even if it did not conformentirely to the original plans. Subsequently, the design for the Dock Police Office wasattributed to Lyster, and was described as ‘a handsome stone building’ (ibid). Originalplans and elevations, now lodged at the Maritime Museum Archive, show that the DockPolice Office was a three-storey edifice with an ashlar pink sandstone facade, pitched roofand extensive basement.

3.4.12 Each elevation of the building was divided into five bays, with the central bay on theprincipal elevation having an iron-framework balcony projecting over the main doorway.The principal entrance was south-facing, with a view towards the newly remodelledCanning Dock, weighing machine and George’s Dock Passage Footbridge. The laterhistory of the Dock Police Office is obscure. It was extant in 1927 (OS 1927a), but absentby 1955 (OS); a rare photograph is published in Anderson (1996, 1). Given the extent ofthe damage sustained by areas of the waterfront during the Blitz of 1940 and 1941, it is notunreasonable to suppose that this building also suffered bomb damage.

3.4.13 Weighing machines had been present within the area of Mann Island and Nova Scotia for asubstantial period of time. Thomas Rice is listed in the Gore's Directory of 1777 as both avictualler and overseer of the Weighing Machine, which was then at New Quay, to thenorth-east of Bird Street. Similarly, in 1781, Thomas Briggs is listed as being employed asan agent to the Weighing Machine at Mann Island, suggesting that it had become necessaryto move the Weighing Machine to an area closer to where the goods were beingdisembarked (Gore 1781). There was also an increased number of counting houses, shipsagents and brokers based at Mann Island and Nova Scotia from 1781 onwards. Thelocation and significance of a Weighing Machine is not a matter that was ever included inthe Minutes of Common Council, however, suggesting that it was probably not overseenby the dock committee, but was managed instead as a personal enterprise.

3.4.14 At the end of the 1820s, Liverpool was eagerly anticipating the changes which would bebrought about by the completion of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway (L&MR). Theline was opened to the public in 1830 (Marriner 1982, 25) and the volume of passengersand freight was large from the outset, with 71,951 passengers and 4063 tons of cargo beingcarried in the first year alone (ibid). Originally, the Liverpool to Manchester lineterminated just north of the town centre at Crown Street; however, by 1832, theconstruction of a central terminus at Lime Street was underway, which was completed in1836.

3.4.15 The opening of the railway, and its subsequent improvements, were to have a markedimpact on the docks, including the arrangement, packaging and transportation of the goodsentering and leaving the Port of Liverpool. Manchester Dock was leased in 1872 to the



London and North Western Railway (LNWR) which, in this transaction, also representedthe Shropshire Union Railway and Canal Company, the Great Western Railway (GWR),and the Birkenhead Joint Lines (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 36). The railway companiesconstructed offices, warehouses and transit sheds around the dock, including the extantbuildings on the former south quay (Liverpool City Council 2005, 60–1), operated by theGWR and LNWR (Moss and Stammers nd, 17, 20). In the absence of its own direct raillink, this facility was the GWR’s foothold on the eastern shore of the Mersey, and allowedthe company to transfer goods into Liverpool from its facilities at Morpeth Dock inBirkenhead (Atkins and Hyde 2000, 139).

3.4.16 In conjunction with the changes in the area relating to imports and the handling of goods,alterations can also be seen in the overall reduction of small industry and businesses withinthe area of Irwell Street, although these continue to thrive in the areas of Nova Scotia andMann Island, with properties increasingly given over to named public houses (assumingthe requirement of a licence, rather than the unlicensed victuallers and drinking houses ofthe eighteenth century). Groups of official representatives for various large companies,such as Mainwaring and Company Commission Agents, the Mersey Docks and HarbourBoard Central offices for the cargo surveyors, the Shropshire Union Railways and CanalCompany, and the GWR Goods Company, had all established themselves in the area ofIrwell Street and the Old Quay by 1900, and improvements to the area followed, in theform of newly cobbled roads and tram lines installed in 1903 (Photographs of CF Inston(Wilkinson 2009)).

3.4.17 This influx of offices and companies associated with the transport network also sawmodifications to the area around the Manchester Dock, specifically the addition of shedsand piers to accommodate the transfer of goods from the small boats which used theManchester Dock, to the railway which now extended down the northern limit of the dock.The construction of three timber piers, which projected out from the eastern quay of thedock, was accompanied by a long shed overhanging the eastern quay. These structures arenoted on the OS maps of 1850 (Fig 10) and 1908 (Fig 11), along with the GWR building(constructed c1890; Atkins and Hyde 2000), which forms the southern limit of theperimeter of Manchester Dock, being constructed directly onto the retaining wall.

3.4.18 The area of Nova Scotia, Irwell Place and Mann Island retained the smaller businesses, allof which continued to exist within the footprint established by the time of the 1765 map byJohn Eyes (Fig 5). The area of Mann Island, specifically the northern limit of Nova Scotiawith the principal elevations facing George’s Dock, was entirely populated by victuallersrunning public houses, with 1 Mann Island listed as a public house (although no name isgiven) run by John Henry Quayle, a victualler. Similarly, 2 Mann Island is listed as TheOld House Public House, run by Francis Gore, and 3 Mann Island is listed as The OddFellow’s Arms (no victualler’s name is provided). This dense group of public houses isfurther complemented by the presence of The Old Lifeboat Public House at 1 Nova Scotia,the Packet House Public House at 1 Irwell Street and Dicky Sam’s Inn at 8 Nova Scotia(Gore 1900).

3.4.19 Aside from public houses, the streets still accommodated a series of business enterpriseswhich had been long established; for instance, there were salt merchants at 5 and 7 IrwellStreet and 2 Murray Place, and a smithy at 10 Nova Scotia. The dock gateman lived at 9Nova Scotia, directly opposite the gate and bridge over George’s Dock Passage.



3.5 THE MERSEY RAILWAY

3.5.1 On the opposite side of the river, the Chester and Birkenhead Railway company hadbrought the first railway to the Wirral in 1840, and by 1866, a commuter line had beencreated to link Hoylake, and the intervening villages along the Wirral coastline, with theindustrial hub of Birkenhead (MPTE 1986, 2). The launch of the Mersey PneumaticRailway project was authorised in June 1866 (Act 29 and 30 Vict, cap 39), subsequentlybecoming known as the Mersey Railway Company. The Act of 1866 gave power to thecompany to connect Liverpool with Birkenhead by means of a railway under the bank andbed of the river Mersey, although this project stalled, due to a lack of capital investment(Slaughter 1869, 118).

3.5.2 Further upheaval to the area on the east side of George’s Dock Passage occurred during theperiod 1881–6, when the Mersey Railway Company cut a tunnel linking James Streetstation, Liverpool, with Hamilton Square station in Birkenhead (Maund 2002, 68).Construction of the tunnels began formally on 29th October 1881, but there were problemswith the geology which were not predicted by the engineers; however, the work movedsteadily forward, particularly after the acquisition of a special boring machine designed bya Colonel Beaumont RE, which moved the work forward at a rate of 150 feet (45.7m) perweek (MPTE 1986, 2). Trains on the line were originally steam-hauled, so that substantialinvestment was necessary to provide effective ventilation, in addition to the inevitablenecessity of removing water from the tunnel. Pumping and ventilation stations were set upat each end of the tunnel, at Mann Island in Liverpool, and on Shore Road in Birkenhead(op cit, 15).

3.5.3 Both were fitted out with steam-driven pumps to clear water from the tunnel’s drainageheading, while ‘Guibal’-type fans, 40ft (12.2m) and 30ft (9.1m) in diameter respectively,produced by Black Hawthorn & Co (a steam-locomotive manufacturer based in Gateshead)created a vacuum in the ventilation heading, to draw fresh air into the tunnel via thestations at each end (Maund 2002, 6 and 15; Jones 2006, 132). The structures first appearon the 1891 1:500 Ordnance Survey Town Plan and comprised a group of long brick shedswith one square crenellated tower, situated parallel to The Strand (and latterly the overheadrailway) which covered numerous subterranean chambers housing deep shafts. Thesedescended into the rockhead and opened at a level just above the 1:27 gradient of thetunnel’s main line. Large machine bases and engine rooms would also have been requiredas part of the design. Despite the inclusion of vast fans and an intricate ventilation systemwithin the design for the tunnels, the Beyer and Peacock-built steam engines produced farmore smoke and soot than the ventilation system could clear. Because of this, and despitethe novelty, people returned to using the long-established ferry, especially during thesummer months, and the Mersey Railway Company was soon making serious losses thataffected the financial viability of the scheme. By 1888, the Mersey Railway Company wasdeclared bankrupt (MPTE 1986, 3).

3.5.4 The area remained in heavy use, however, particularly by foot traffic, as a greater numberof people used the ferry terminal at the Pier Head, rather than the Mersey Railway. In orderto deal with this, the footpaths on the bridge across George’s Dock passage were widenedin 1895 from 4 feet (1.22m) to 7 foot 6” (2.28m), at a cost of £1200 (MDHB/G50/WUP).

3.5.5 In 1888, the year the Mersey Railway Company was declared bankrupt, the LiverpoolOverhead Railway Company was formed, to create a double-track elevated railway whichwas to run the majority of the length of the dock estate, stretching a distance of six miles,



from Alexandra Dock in the north to Herculaneum Dock in the south. The line, whichopened in 1892, hugged the cyclopean granite boundary wall of the dock estate, beforepassing the city centre, with stations also situated at the Pier Head, James Street (at MannIsland) and Canning Dock (LCC 2005, 141). Many of the historical images of MannIsland, particularly the area to the east of George’s Dock Passage, show the heavily built-up area hemmed in by the piers and tracks of the Overhead Railway to the east. Theoverhead railway suffered damage during the Second World War; James Street station forthe Overhead Railway, adjacent to Mann Island, was destroyed by a direct hit during theMay Blitz of 1941 and was rebuilt on modern lines in 1942 (Liverpool Echo 2008). TheOverhead Railway was closed on the 30th of December 1956 and was purchased by GeorgeCohen and Sons who dismantled the structure for scrap.

3.5.6 Despite the financial issues of the Mersey Railway Company, the railway continued tooperate, with passenger transport reaching a peak in 1890 after the transportation of tenmillion people in one year. In 1898, the receivers stated that ‘If the tunnel could be freedfrom smoke and noxious fumes, the main obstacle to the development of traffic would beremoved’ (MPTE 1986, 4). It is interesting to note that, as the fans were situated in parallelto one another, unless the smaller of the two fans was operating at a 33% faster speed thanthe larger fan, there was likely to be a mismatch in pressure, which would have made theventilation system ineffective (Cory 2005).

3.5.7 In 1903, George Westinghouse (1846-1914), an American industrialist and entrepreneur,agreed to finance the electrification of the Mersey Railway, as well as settling thecompany’s debts, in order to bring it out of the hands of the receivers. Westinghouse soughtto improve the Mersey Railway at a cost of nearly £300,000 by importing the necessaryelectrical equipment from the United States and ensuring a smooth transition from steampower to electricity without any disruption to the functioning line (MPTE 1986, 5). Thiswork was successfully completed in April 1903 and the first electrically poweredpassenger service left Central Station on Sunday, 3rd May 1903.

3.6 THE TWENTIETH-CENTURY DECLINE OF THE MANN ISLAND DOCKS

3.6.1 By the end of the nineteenth century, traffic using George’s Dock was in decline, and it wasproving to be a considerable impediment to the cross-river ferry traffic, which had grownsubstantially; it was therefore closed in 1900 (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 28 and 30). Theclosure of George’s Dock rendered other dock facilities in the locality redundant, andGeorge’s Ferry Basin and George’s Dock Passage were also taken out of service (op cit,28). The extant remains of the southern half of George’s Dock Passage, including the wellsfor the gates, remain visible at Mann Island.

3.6.2 In 1901, the first steps were taken towards altering the landscape at Pier Head and MannIsland, with a move away from the transit sheds and warehouses. Instead, the Pier Headwas to become the site of three buildings which would come to be representative ofLiverpool and core elements of its famous skyline. The offices of the Mersey Docks andHarbour Board (now the Port of Liverpool Building) were designed in 1901 by Briggs,Wolstenholme and Thornley; constructed in Edwardian Baroque style, with pediments andtall lantern towers, this building occupies the southern end of the site of the formerGeorge’s Dock (LCC 2005, 50). The construction of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Boardoffices was followed in 1908 by that of the Royal Liver Assurance Building, at the



northern limit of the former George’s Dock. The Grade I listed Liver Building wasdesigned by Aubrey Thomas, who also designed the Tower Buildings on the opposite sideof The Strand. The Three Graces were completed by the addition of the Cunard Building,which was constructed in 1913 to provide offices for the world-famous Cunard ShippingLine (ibid).

3.6.3 At the beginning of the twentieth century, Mann Island was regarded as being anomalous,not least because its small-scale domestic architecture (Fig 11) was now situated next tothree large, ornate structures, and because it was the only place within the boundary of thedock estate where licensed premises were still allowed to operate. From 1891 onwards, aseries of letters and correspondence (MDHB/2901/L88) was lodged with the MerseyDocks and Harbour Board, indicating that the buildings of Nova Scotia and Mann Islandwere in a particularly poor state of repair. In 1903, a group of Justices visited the area toassess the state of the buildings there, and the Clerk of City Justices recorded that ‘ acommittee of Justices have visited the public houses [at] Nova Scotia and in view of theirdilapidated and insanitary condition and unsuitability for their present purpose, it will benecessary…. to consider whether all or any licences should be renewed’ (ibid). Accordingto the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board records for this period, nos 1 and 3 Mann Islandand 1 Nova Scotia and 1 Irwell Street continued operating as public houses after 1907. No3 Mann Island was the first property at Mann Island to be occupied and appears to haveoperated as a public house from 1796 until the early twentieth century (Gore 1796;MDHB/2901/L88).

3.6.4 In 1909, the agenda for works for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (MDHB) recordsan agreement whereby the Mersey Railway Company filled in the vertical headings atMann Island (surplus to requirements following the installation of the electrified line),leaving the horizontal headings in their present condition. The Mersey Railway Companywas also asked to ensure that the point at which the redundant tunnels joined was blockedusing concrete, and that the company in turn requested of the MDHB that an indemnityshould be arranged against any future claims of subsidence or nuisance relating to thepresence of the redundant tunnel headings (MDHB/M51 2 WUP, 252). This was followedby the Mersey Railway Company relinquishing its lease on the 720 square yards(658.36m²) of land occupied by the ventilation station. The Mersey Railway Companyretained elements of the pumping station adjacent to George’s Dock Passage; the longsouthern shed was removed but the four-storey pump house tower, with its shallowpyramidal roof, was retained and is still in use today.

3.6.5 Manchester Dock was also gradually rendered redundant, following the construction of theManchester Ship Canal, and as other means of transport were developed and becameefficient. It was closed in the late 1920s and was infilled in 1928–36, using crushed pinksandstone waste from the excavation of the Mersey Road Tunnels (Ritchie-Noakes 1984,36; Stammers 1999, 70). Map evidence suggests that the form of Manchester Dock wasapparent for many years, revealed by the extant buildings around its quayside, and theGWR continued to operate a goods service from its own warehouses on the site during the1930s (Atkins and Hyde 2000). Following the collapse of the Great Western RailwayCompany, its successors, the British Transport Commission, became the title holders of theland around the former Manchester Dock. On 2ndJanuary 1962, it was eventually permittedto surrender its lease, but was forced to pay £6700 in fines to cover the dilapidated state ofthe land being vacated (MDHB/2211/M38, 1962).



3.6.6 The buildings occupying Nova Scotia were demolished in c 1920 (English Heritage NMRAerofilms Collection), removing the last structural remains of the late eighteenth- / earlynineteenth-century port in this area, except for Manchester Dock. They were replaced bytransit sheds serving both Manchester and Canning Docks (OS 1927b), which remained insitu at the start of the archaeological investigations of the site, and were surveyed in 2007(OA North 2007a). At the northern end of the area that was cleared in c 1920, an Art Decobuilding, the Voss Garage, was constructed in the late 1930s (Sharples 2004).

3.6.7 Further changes at the same date affected the area to the east of George’s Dock Passage,with the construction, in 1931–4, of a new fanhouse north of Mann Island and east of thePort of Liverpool Building (OS 1891; Sharples 2004, 156, 158). The fanhouse, known asthe George's Dock Ventilation, and the central station of the Mersey Road Tunnel, wasconstructed to serve the needs of the Queensway Tunnel and was designed in Art Decostyle, with Egyptian influences, by Mott and Brodie, with noted architect Herbert Rowseoverseeing the project. Located directly east of the Port of Liverpool Building, thisstructure is decorated with relief sculptures symbolising Civil Engineering, Construction,Architecture and Decoration (LCC 2005, 51). On the eastern side the George’s Dockpassage a two storey brick building, the National Sea Training School was built in the1950s; it later became Media House (OS 1955; Moss and Stammers nd, 23).



4. EXCAVATION RESULTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

4.1.1 Generally speaking, land reclamation and development of the majority of the dock systemin Liverpool initially progressed westwards and then northwards along the banks of theMersey; documentary evidence for these developments may be tracked on historical maps(eg Figs 4–11). There is very little direct historical evidence for the methods employed toreclaim land from the river, or how the dock and sea walls were constructed, but the resultsfrom the excavation provide considerable detail for all of these activities. The historicalmapping and trade directories show that reclamation and dock construction wasaccompanied by the construction of buildings connected in a variety of ways with activityin the docks, whether directly, such as warehousing, manufactories, and packet offices, orindirectly, in the form of facilities for mariners, and domestic accommodation for thoseworking on the docks.

4.1.2 The evidence from the below-ground archaeological investigation takes a number of forms.There is the structural evidence provided by the massive remains of sea and dock walls,and other walls erected as working platforms at stages in the process of reclaiming land, aswell as the material used to fill in behind the dock and sea walls. Evidence was alsorecovered for ancillary structures contemporary with the working life of the docks, and forbuildings associated with the operation of the Mersey Railway tunnel. Finally, there are theartefacts, some incorporated in the reclamation material, others relating to activity whenthe docks were active. These remains reveal the history of the development of the riverfrontage, a history which culminated in the backfilling of some dock basins, includingManchester Dock itself, and a change in the landscape away from the earlier docklandcharacter to one represented by the Three Graces and the central urban opulence.

4.1.3 The aims of the project (Section 2) required analysis to characterise and phase the activitiesidentified on the site, including the episodes of construction. This has been achieved, andnine phases of activity have been ascribed, with supporting evidence from a synthesis ofthe artefactual and documentary analysis. A further research aim ( Section 5.1) was toacquire information about the methods and raw materials used in the construction of themajor structures (Section 5).

4.1.4 The site was divided into three areas of quay, which were partly dictated by the build planof the site, and also by the existing topographical features, such as George’s Dock Passage(Fig 3). The area to the west of George’s Dock Passage and Canning Dock was designatedas Area A, that to the east of George’s Dock Passage, north of Canning Dock, wasdesignated Area B, and the area to the north of the truncated limit of George’s DockPassage, adjacent to the pumping station, was designated Area C.

4.2 PHASE 1 (MERSEY FORESHORE: MEDIEVAL–MID-EIGHTEENTH CENTURY)4.2.1 Before the start of the reclamation of land from the Mersey at Mann Island, in the mid-

eighteenth century (Section 3.2.2), the area west of The Strand was foreshore, exposedtwice daily at low tide (Fig 4). The excavation, which was focused on the ground occupiedby the development and, therefore, was limited to its footprint and formation level, thus did



not encounter the original level of this foreshore as it would have been prior to the start ofthe land reclamation. At the formation level for construction, however, deposits wereencountered which equate to the areas of foreshore following the start of the landreclamation activity after 1740 (Section 3.2.7). This comprised the construction of threeconsecutive sea walls (Section 4.3) and the Dry Dock (Section 3.2.6). The furthest of thesesea walls lay more than 100m out into the Mersey from the edge of the dry ground,indicating that the Mersey foreshore was extensive and gently sloping. since landreclamation at this time did not attempt to extend below the low tide mark (Jarvis 1991b,10). Historical mapping indicates the extent and rapidity of progress in the landreclamation programme and, by the mid-eighteenth century, the built-up area of Liverpoolextended nearly half a mile north of the present Canning Graving Dock 3 (directly south ofthe site), and was occupied by quays and embayments, and a public baths.

4.2.2 In theory, the shallowly sloping and extensive foreshore would have made the earlierphases of reclamation relatively easy, providing sufficient backfill material was available.The earliest deposits discovered relating to this phase were the early riverine silts uponwhich the sea walls were situated. These deposits, 7798 and 7799, a fine grey alluvialsilt/clay with small fragments of organic material, were observed within a narrow sondageexcavated against the east-facing (landward) elevation of sea wall 5707 (Section 4.3.4),and appear to be part of the foreshore that formed following the construction of the DryDock.

4.3 PHASE 2 (THE FIRST SEA WALL AND DRY DOCK: 1740S)4.3.1 The construction of the Dry Dock (Fig 5), the second proper dock/basin in the fledgling

dock system, was sanctioned under an act of Parliament of 1738 (Section 3.2.9), and thenorth wall, 5270, built from locally quarried yellow sandstone, was encountered in Area Bof the excavations (Fig 12). Located at the southern limit of the excavation, this wall was awell-built sandstone structure, 1.35m wide, with a vertical seaward face, constructed in anirregular bond (an irregular mixture of large rectangular blocks and smaller square blocks,which were particularly prevalent at the point where the wall began to curve at the easternlimit) with no obvious sign of any mortar bond (Plate 1). No coping stones were found,suggesting that the wall had been reduced in height and that some of the upper courses,including the coping stones, had been removed for reuse elsewhere. The south-facingelevation had, in places, a series of largely geometric mason’s marks, with several designsbeing repeated on other walls within Areas A and B (eg walls 5270, 5707, 7735 and 7600(Section 4.6.1).

4.3.2 The Dry Dock was reconstructed in 1826-9 to form Canning Dock (Section 3.4), and theearlier northern wall of the Dry Dock was preserved beneath the quayside of CanningDock. It is possible that the eastern Dry Dock wall may also be preserved behind theeastern Canning Dock wall, and although this lay beyond the limit of the Mann Islandexcavations. An archaeological evaluation of the proposed route for the Mersey Tramdevelopment in 2005 (OA North 2005), which extended along the Strand, did not,however, reveal any sections of an earlier Dry Dock wall.

4.3.3 Given that the northern wall of the Dry Dock was preserved, it was thought that thewestern wall may also survive, but the archaeological investigations in Area A did notreveal it. However, given that the position of the secant pile wall and ring beam was less



than 2.6m west of the existing western wall of Canning Dock, the Dry Dock wall either didnot survive or the modifications to the Dry Dock did not include a dramatic alteration ofthe alignment of its western wall. This latter possibility is further supported by theexcavations directly against the south-facing elevation of the Canning Dock wall, as part ofthe work within the LCL1 bay for the Liverpool Canal Link project (OA North 2011a) (Fig3). Work within this area provided no evidence of an earlier wall, potentially supportingthe idea that the western wall of the Dry Dock was left standing to serve as the westernwall of Canning Dock. The rear of the Canning Dock wall was found to be constructed ina mixture of pink and yellow sandstone, with yellow sandstone being the principalconstruction material.

4.3.4 Sea wall 5707 (Plate 2), which matched the north/south orientation of the Dry Dock, wassimilarly constructed from yellow sandstone, and was exposed approximately 26m west ofthe western wall of Canning Dock (Fig 13). Towards the north end of Area A, the sea wallcurved to the east, on a radius of approximately 14.3m (Plate 3). This wall then continuedeastwards beyond the limit of excavation, but a projection on this east/west alignmentdemonstrates that it may have lain approximately 31m north of the north wall (5270) ofDry Dock. Comprehensive, and successive, redevelopment within Area B, particularly thealterations carried out to the width and alignment of the Graving Dock, which subsequentlybecame George’s Dock Passage (Section 3.2.21), appear to have erased all traces of thiswall on the east side of George’s Dock Passage.

4.3.5 The north/south element of sea wall 5707 survived some 0.5m below the ground surface,and was exposed to a depth of 13 courses (Fig 14). The wall was trapezoidal in profile, andmeasured 1.5m wide at the top, widening to just over 2m at the bottom of the excavation.The stonework was well-tooled, to a near-flat finish, on the western, waterside elevation,but was only roughly squared on the eastern, construction face. As with the northern wallof the Dry Dock (5270), the west-facing elevation of 5707 was found to have a number ofmason’s marks, again mostly geometric in pattern. Eight different mason’s marks wereidentified, with at least four being a repeat of marks used on the stones of the Dry Dockwall. This structure continued to a depth of at least 1.4m beneath the formation level of thesite and a limited portion of this was examined within a sondage which was sunk toestablish the true depth of the wall. The construction technique and bond were found to bethe same as in the upper part of the wall, but as a result of water ingress, it was not possibleto establish whether or not this wall was sited on top of timber piles, which was a possiblefoundation technique used in later dock walls, such as Manchester Dock (Section 4.6). Thearea between sea wall 5707 and the west wall of the Dry Dock had been backfilled withlayers of coarse sands, silty clays and coarse crushed pink sandstone. It is likely that anelement of this crushed sandstone and coarse sand had been obtained as quarry waste;however, some of the material may originally have been used as ships’ ballast (Section3.1.12). In parts of the backfill deposits, particularly at the north-east side of 5707, it waspossible to discern small tiplines, which sloped downwards from east to west, suggestingthat, while much of the material had been dumped in bulk, there were also smallerlocalised episodes of deposition which contributed to the land that become the Dry Pier(Section 3.2.6). No artefacts were recovered from this area since the bulk excavationprocess was very rapid.



4.4 PHASE 3 (THE SECOND SEA WALL, BIRD’S SLIP, GEORGE’S DOCK PASSAGE AND NOVASCOTIA OCCUPATION: LATE 1740S–EARLY 1760S)

4.4.1 Further reclamation west and north of the Dry Dock was necessary for the construction ofa Graving Dock in 1746, and also to provide suitable wharfage for local river traffic(Section 3.2.11). A yellow sandstone wall, 7638 (Fig 13), 11m west of wall 5707, boundedthis new land, and can be named the second sea wall. Evidence from historical maps (Figs5 and 6) suggests that it once extended approximately 90m north from the point where itjoined wall 5707. This was also constructed from well-tooled yellow sandstone blocks,arranged in an irregular bond without any evidence of mortar (Plate 4), and the rear of thewall was stepped, using a mixture of rubble and ashlar stone walling in the same material(Fig 15). Invariably, the ashlar masonry at the back face of the wall was not as cleanlyworked as the stones comprising the face; however, many stones presented evidence ofneat lines of toolmarks and squared-off edges. The narrow, rough steps at the back face ofthe wall created a rudimentary and continuous counterfort. The space between wall 7638and its predecessor, 5707, was filled with layers of coarse sands, silty clays and possiblesandstone quarry waste, and again it is likely that some of this material may have beenobtained by the carefully directed discharge of ships’ ballast as they put into port. Some ofthis reclamation material was industrial waste, indicated by a sizeable dump of pottery,consisting of 47.74% by weight of the total assemblage of sugar wares recovered from theexcavations, which was found beneath a cellar in Area A (Section 5.2.24).

4.4.2 Bird’s Slip is marked on John Eyes map of 1765 (Fig 5; Section 3.2.10) and named onPerry’s map of 1769 (Fig 6). The excavation revealed a wall, 7735 (Fig 13), slopingdownwards from north to south, and butting against wall 7638, which was c 1.6m wide atthe limit of excavation, and which was recorded by laser scanning (Fig 16). The wall wasconstructed of yellow sandstone ashlar blocks, with large, slightly less well-dressed,coping stones in the same material (Plate 5). This was constructed subsequent to twophases of reclamation and was probably intended to facilitate unloading from theforeshore. Also revealed was a line of 14 wooden posts, aligned parallel to sea wall 5707,rather than the slip (Fig 17). Excavation to the south of the site, within bays LCL1 andLCL2 of the canal link at Mann Island, revealed that the timbers continued, ending where asecond slip or breakwater was encountered (OA North 2011a). All of the timbers appearedto have been roughly hewn, and removal of two of them, from the northern end of thegroup, showed that their bottoms had been shaped into roughly four-sided points tofacilitate driving them into the river bed. The line of timbers was not found to continue tothe north of the line of wall 7638, suggesting that the timbers were put in place followingthe construction of that wall. Its presence created a sheltered area to the north of thatknown as the graving bank and would have presented a useful place to moor smaller shipsand river-based traffic that were not destined for the Old Dock (Plate 6). Bird's Slip wasconstructed a short time after the completion of sea wall 7638 (Fig 17), and providedadditional shelter to this mooring as well as a slipway for foot traffic, enabling themovement of goods arriving and departing from the numerous boathouses which sprung upon Mann Island in the 1760s. Both features are of a scale and character appropriate forestuarine or small-scale coastal trading (cf Stammers 2007, 37–49). Wall 7638 exhibitednumerous repairs, one of which, located approximately 12m from the northern limit, wasquite substantial, with a much more irregular bond type, suggesting that at some point asection of the wall, measuring around 8m in length (and through its full thickness), hadbeen breached. It is not known whether this repair was carried out after storm damage or as



maintenance to an area which had suffered badly from the long-term effects of water andmechanical erosion.

4.4.3 Warehouses and Dwellings on Nova Scotia: John Eyes’ map of 1765 shows threeirregular-sized blocks of buildings backing on to the sea wall itself, and the area to the eastof these blocks is named as Nova Scotia (Fig 5). The more northerly of the two blocks ofbuildings is distinctive in that the properties have a stepped appearance at the southern end.Perry’s map of 1769 (Fig 6) shows this block divided by a narrow street, which OSmapping recorded as Irwell Place (OS 1850; Fig 10). The historical maps of 1765 (Fig 5),1769 (Fig 6), and that of 1795 which accompanies the Strangers’ Guide to Liverpool (Anon1795) all show these plots of land at Nova Scotia as blocks, rather than presenting them inany detail, and therefore it is difficult to understand any subdivisions which may havetaken place within the larger plots at this time. However, from 1803, Horwood’s map (Fig8) provides a clearer illustration of the occupation of Nova Scotia. The plan of thesebuildings (Plate 7) persisted until their demolition in c 1920 (Section 4.6.3), probablybecause of the sizeable and durable nature of their sandstone footings, 5141; however, thehistorical mapping shows that the internal divisions changed, in a manner that wasapparently largely undetectable by archaeological investigation, perhaps because of theextent of demolition (Section 4.6.3-12).

4.4.4 The excavation revealed, behind sea wall 7638, the cellars of a number of buildings (Plate7), west of George’s Dock Passage (Fig 13), which represent the occupation of land createdby the reclamation. The earliest extant remains were constructed in yellow sandstone,comparable with the material used to construct the sea wall itself (Plate 8). Indeed, giventhe variations in levels and the missing coping stones, it is not unlikely that, as the seawalls were superseded and fell out of use through the progression of the land reclamationprocess, the top courses of stone were reused for local construction. Within Area A (Fig13), yellow sandstone ashlar masonry provided three extant courses of the gable wall,5134, at the southern end of one of the buildings on the north side of Murray Place, and theangled wall, 5141, which is shown on John Eyes’ map of 1765 (Fig 5), and Perry’s map of1769 (Fig 6), and was probably once the gable of another building (Plate 7).

4.4.5 The unusual appearance of the upper course of sea wall 7638 (Fig 13) in the vicinity ofthese buildings may reasonably be explained if it once formed the foundation course of thefirst phase of those same buildings, as is implied by the historical mapping. This area ofwarehouses and associated cellars did not extend as far as the sea wall itself, in part toallow a sufficient mass of landfill to counter the water pressure on the wall, but, perhapsmore importantly, this area provided a quayside for the servicing of the ships.

4.4.6 No further building in sandstone was identified, but later phases of brick walling north ofMurray Place were revealed, which suggest that there was a degree of longevity to thebuildings (Plate 9). Map evidence indicates that these brick buildings superseded thesandstone ones in the early nineteenth century (Figs 8 and 9). A burnt layer beneath thebrick floor of one of the cellars in Area A, within the area noted as Mr Fraser’s Coal Yardon the Horwood map of 1803 (Fig 8; Plate 10), with a range of artefacts of eighteenth-century date, may suggest the fate of earlier structures.

4.4.7 At the eastern edge of the excavation in Area C, a short length of eighteenth-century wall,7248 (Fig 18), forming the west side of George’s Dock Passage, was uncovered. George’sDock itself was opened in 1771, although the extensive works necessary to create itcommenced in 1762 (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 27). The passage provided a route for shipping



between George’s Dock and the Dry Dock (later Canning Dock). The upper three coursesof this, otherwise yellow, sandstone wall were executed in the more resilient pinksandstone that was typically used after 1785 (op cit, 37), and probably represents a repair(Plate 11). Additional elements of George’s Dock Passage, including larger yellow ashlarsandstone blocks from the original configuration related to the old Graving Dock, wereidentified during a series of further works for the Public Realm scheme in May 2011, aprogramme of landscape improvement linked to the Canal Link development (OA North2011b). Within this area, further to the south of the previously identified section ofGeorge’s Dock Passage, the walls were entirely constructed of yellow sandstone, with theblocks being large and coarsely hewn; the coping stones were missing within this area. Theyellow sandstone and the size and nature of the blocks suggest that some of what wasobserved may have related to the Old Graving Dock, which was constructed in 1740(Section 3.2.9), as well as the later George’s Dock Passage, which was partially excavatedduring the main phase of the work within Area C.

4.5 PHASE 4 (SLIP: 1770S)4.5.1 A length of almost 40m of yellow sandstone walling, 7636 (Fig 13), was uncovered c 7m

west of the second sea wall, 7638. The upper level of this wall, marked by in situ copingstones, dipped southwards. Its construction was similar to wall 7638, with a well-tooledfinish to the regularly coursed stone blocks of the seaward face, and a less even rubblebuild on the landward side. At the northern limit of the excavation, the wall began to curvewestwards (Plate 12; Fig 18) and may have continued beyond this a considerable way tothe west (c 80m), to link in with a sea wall on a north-west / south-east orientation that wasuncovered during the excavation of LCL5 to LCL7 within the Pier Head section of theLiverpool Canal Link (OA North 2011b; Fig 1). At its southern end, the toe of 7636terminated in an earth-filled rectilinear wooden construction, 7783, consisting of oakplanks, varying in width from 0.2–0.54m, set on edge (Fig 13). The function of thisstructure was not determined; however, it appeared to be poorly constructed and was likelyto be incidental or temporary.

4.5.2 This wall does not appear on any of the historical maps, and is not otherwise recorded. Itseems likely that it provided another slip, allowing vessels, with some effort, to take on anddischarge cargo at all levels of the tide. It may have also been created to facilitate easieraccess for the transportation of raw materials, including timber and canvas, to the gravingbank at low tide.

4.5.3 In the space between the second sea wall (7638) and wall 7636, a row of yellow sandstoneblocks, 7764, was revealed beneath the backfill (Plate 13), which was alignedperpendicular to both walls, and was no more than 0.7m wide. This was one of a series ofsuch constructions, with four more revealed to the south (7762, 7763, 7864, 7865), at nofixed interval, but all on the same east/west alignment and on the same north/south axis(Fig 13). The level of the upper surfaces of these features was comparable with the base ofthe first and second sea walls, although their position implies that they post-date the secondsea wall (7638), and pre-date wall 7636. Their closely comparable alignment, constructionand orientation suggests they were related and all fulfilled a similar purpose, but the natureof this was not apparent, although it is possible that they were somehow connected withthe construction of wall 7636. A further possibility is that these parallel lines of sandstonewere used as hard standings or supports for the laying down of timbers which then allowed



a safe foot-way out onto the graving bank at low tide. Essentially, they may have providedthe basis for a temporary roadway, which would have allowed timbers and other material(traditionally stored just north-west of the site at the newly reclaimed Pier Head) to becarried safely across the soft silts to the graving bank, where ships were careened for repair(Ritchie-Noakes 1984; Section 3.3.2). Once the process was completed, or at the risingtide, the timber boards could be lifted, leaving behind the stone platforms.

4.5.4 The material excavated from the space west of walls 7638 and 5707 consisted of severallayers of tipped backfill, largely comprising quarry waste and dumped ballast material,sloping gently downwards from east to west. This series of tipped deposits also includedlarge dumps of industrial waste, such as the failed firings of clay tobacco pipes (5747;Section 4.4). These dumps took the form of discrete tip lines within the sterile ballast andquarry-waste deposits, and represent a clearly defined period of dumping within the largerland reclamation phase. The clay pipes have been identified as deriving from the workshopof William Morgan, active in the late eighteenth century (Section 4.4), and similar to thedump recovered from the excavations on the site of the Liverpool Canal Link Mann Islandsection, immediately to the south (OA North 2011a) (Fig 24).

4.6 PHASE 5 (MANCHESTER BASIN, MANCHESTER DOCK AND MANN ISLAND OCCUPATION:1770S–C 1815)

4.6.1 The Manchester Basin appears on historical mapping in 1785 (Section 2.3.1) but, on thatmapping, it has a different shape from the dock which replaced it. Its construction requiredsubstantial land reclamation behind a sea wall to the west, beyond the limit of the presentexcavation. The subsequent development of the basin, shown on Horwood’s map of 1803(Fig 8), altered its outline, and finally, in c 1815, its entrance was narrowed, and twin-leaflock gates were installed, to form Manchester Dock (Section 2.4). The excavationuncovered both the north and east walls (7600; Figs 13 and 19) of the dock, which wereconstructed with a waterside face of the harder pink sandstone (Plate 14), in coursed ashlar,and a rear face using both pink and yellow sandstone, which was probably recycled fromthe walling of the earlier basin. The wall was stepped out towards its base, providing amore substantial foundation, and was recorded by laser scanning (Fig 20). Towards thewestern limit of excavation, mooring rings were found in situ, and two types of bases forcranes serving the dock were also identified. Two bases of one type were situated behindthe dock wall (Plate 15), and were probably early manual cranes, but there was also asecond type, probably a later steam-powered derrick, that was built into the top of the northwall of the dock and housed in a brick-lined recess (Fig 19). Parallel with the north wall ofthe dock, at its base, the excavation revealed three discrete lines of stone blocks similar tothose excavated between sea wall 7638 and slip 7636 (Plate 16). Although orientatedentirely differently, these were otherwise comparable with those found near walls 7636 and7638, and may have fulfilled a similar purpose during the dock’s construction (Section2.3).

4.6.2 Opposite the west entrance to Irwell Place, north of Manchester Dock, a rectilinear brickbuilding, 7693 (Fig 13), 4.3m wide, was revealed, which partly bisected wall 7636. Theeast wall of this was likely to have been a gable end, constructed in English cross bond(Ching 2011), and the equivalent of four bricks wide. The length of the building could notbe confirmed, as the west gable was not present, but the building was at least 8.02m long.The only historical map on which this building is potentially depicted is Horwood’s of



1803 (Fig 8), where it would possibly have formed part of a range of buildings shownextending north from this approximate position. This identification is not certain, however,as the east wall of the building excavated seems closer to the west wall of the Nova Scotiabuildings than the mapped example. The buildings shown on Horwood’s map were latermodified, at least to the extent of providing an entrance directly opposite Irwell Street, asshown on Gage’s map of 1836 (Fig 9), and, because this building lay in the path of thisentrance, it seems likely that it was demolished in the 1830s. No artefacts were recoveredfrom this building to confirm its date or indicate its purpose, however.

4.6.3 From the evidence of the historical mapping, it would appear that, at the turn of theeighteenth century, the two blocks of properties between Mann Island and Murray Placewere developed into the forms which largely persisted until their demolition, c 1920(Section 2.6; Fig 21). The southern block, between Murray Place and Irwell Place, wasinvestigated by excavations in Area A (Fig 13; Plate 7), while the excavations in Area Cexamined the northern block, between Irwell Place and Mann Island (Fig 18). Both blockswere identifiable from their cellars, substantial remains of which were extant in Area A,while those in Area C were more partial, and altered by later development (Plate 9). Eachblock was divided north/south, approximately along the centre, with separate propertiesfacing each street.

4.6.4 The west walls of the ground floor of these buildings, reconstructed from reliablenineteenth-century OS mapping (1:1056 Town Plan, 1850), and supported by patches ofbrickwork found by the excavation, lay above the second sea wall, 7638 (Section 4.4.1),presumably because it was regarded as a firm foundation. A typical loading well, 7681 (Fig18), for a warehouse, lined and floored in brick, was cut into the upper course of the seawall, to serve the west-facing property immediately south of Irwell Place (Plate 17). Mostof the extant walling and flooring of the cellars was executed in red brick, the samematerial evident from paintings produced by the Liverpool artist, WG Herdman, and alsoshown on nineteenth-century photographs, such as those taken by CF Inston (Wilkinson2009). Sandstone was used to provide bases, in two of the cellars, for columns supportingupper floors, while three of the cellars in the southern block of buildings were filled at anunknown date with carefully stacked loose bricks, 5785.

4.6.5 The eastern extent of the northern block (Area C, Fig 18; Plate 9) is shown as having beensub-divided into four properties on the OS map of 1850, and sufficient structural evidenceremained upon excavation to identify two of these divisions. The two properties at thesouth end of the block were excavated, while the bulk of the remainder lay beyond thelimits of the excavation. The east frontage, comprising the eastern limits of rooms 7201and 7202, executed in brick, was revealed, along with the yellow sandstone kerbs of thepavement, and the large river-rolled cobbles forming the road surface, 7240, whichdemarcated the line of the pedestrian area along the quay at Nova Scotia. The loading quayitself was also constructed of river-rolled cobbles (Plate 11), although these were muchsmaller and had been laid in a more haphazard and less regular manner than the road.Details of the west frontage, onto Irwell Street, which probably directly overlay sea wall7638, were not recorded, as the south-west and western limits of the structure appear tohave been entirely removed by later activity, some of which can be attributed to theexcavation of the foundations for the Porsche Garage (Section 4.10.3). The interiors of therooms produced heavily disturbed brick surfaces in rooms 7201, 7202 and 7203, with theremnants of walls 7209, 7210, 7211 and 7216 indicating the principal sub-divisions. Room



7203, at the western limit of Area C, had the most completely preserved brick floor (7208),containing the foundations of two yellow sandstone pillars, with square recessed sockets,for supporting the floor above. This part of the excavation, along with southern sections ofNova Scotia in Area A, enabled the surviving walls to be superimposed on the historicalmapping evidence, particularly that of Horwood’s map of 1803 (Fig 8) and the OS map of1908 (Fig 11), showing the close correlation (Figs 21 and 22). The majority of the wallsand structures were shown on the historical map sequence and this, coupled with thelistings provided in the various editions of Gore’s Directory (Section 3.2.23), providesufficient information to assign names of the occupants and the functions of buildings tothe evidence within the archaeological record.

4.6.6 Walls 7209 and 7210 (Fig 18) formed the southern boundary of what was 1 Irwell Street(The Packet House Public House), while Room 7201, with its brick floor and walls largelyextant, spanned the area which can be attributed to the basement of number 2 Nova Scotia,in 1891 (OS 1:500 town plan) in use as a saddlers, and 2A Nova Scotia, the premises of ablock and mast maker. While the historical mapping shows a clear division between 2 and2A, no such division was apparent within the archaeological evidence. Similarly, Room7202 was located within the area which was previously known as 3 Nova Scotia, althoughthe function of this space at the end of the nineteenth century was not recorded.

4.6.7 The Ordnance Survey map of 1850 (Fig 10) shows the two properties at the north-eastcorner of this block occupied by public houses, while a nineteenth-century photographshows that the large building at the southern end was a substantial five-storey warehouse,with cellars, and overhead hoists (Stammers 1999, 101). A brick-built access well, 7245, topermit easy movement of goods in and out of this cellar, using a hoist, was identified onthe east frontage of this building, along with the partial remains of another, that served theproperty immediately to the north. The cellars of both properties were floored in brick.

4.6.8 The extensive range of cellars in the southern block of buildings, between Murray Placeand Irwell Place, was almost entirely revealed by the excavation (Fig 21; Plate 7). Thenorthern half of this block is shown as three properties on the 1850 Ordnance Survey map(Fig 10), and the divisions revealed by the excavation coincided with these. The propertiesare shown by maps and photographs to have served as public houses, dining rooms,warehousing and shipping offices with, over time, changes of use in some cases. While alarge proportion of the cellars appeared to have served as storage space throughout theirexistence, the discovery of at least one fireplace indicated the possible provision ofdomestic accommodation. Further historical information taken from numerous editions ofGore’s Directory, dating from 1850 onwards (eg Gore 1850), indicates that some areas hada continuity in the way they were used, with the buildings fronting onto Murray Place,specifically 5 and 7 Irwell Street and 2 Murray Place, being used as salt warehouses. Bothof these buildings were identified during the course of the work, occupying the areamarked on the Horwood map of 1803 map as belonging to Mr Fraser’s Coal Yard (Fig 8).

4.6.9 The excavation allowed the identification of two of the three properties shown on the 1850Ordnance Survey map in the southern half of the block. The return walls for a cellar for athird property, on the east side, fronting on to Nova Scotia, had been disturbed.Cartographic (OS map of 1850 and OS map of 1908; Figs 10 and 11) and photographic(Wilkinson 2009) evidence show that these buildings were in use during the nineteenth andearly twentieth centuries as warehousing, ships’ chandlers, and a smithy. Beneath the brickflooring of the central property (5114; Fig 13; Plate 10), was a burnt layer, from which a



variety of eighteenth-century artefacts was recovered. The historical mapping shows achange in the layout of this building in the period between the late eighteenth and the earlynineteenth centuries (Fig 6; Perry 1769), and it is likely that a fire prompted itsreconstruction.

4.6.10 Further south in Area A, the remains of four cellars, each c 3.8 x 3.8m, were excavated;they were all constructed from brick, two of them being floored in the same material, whilea third had a cobble floor, 5708, from which a penny of 1799 was recovered (Section 5.5).A range of buildings, on a north/south axis, is shown in this area, somewhat schematically,on John Eyes’ map of 1765 (Fig 5), and is represented in a similar manner on Perry’s mapof 1769 (Fig 6). More detail, and a different arrangement, is apparent on Horwood’s mapof 1803 (Fig 8), and the excavated remains appear likely to have coincided with these latterproperties, rather than the earlier (Fig 13).

4.6.11 A variety of artefacts was recovered from floor 5708 of the south-western cellar, sufficientto suggest domestic use, ranging in date from the late seventeenth century through to thenineteenth. A fireplace, in the west wall of the north-eastern cellar, similarly suggestsdomestic accommodation. Fragments of other walls, of comparable style and appearance,were revealed to the south of this group, and probably represent the insubstantial remainsof similar cellars, complementing the line of properties shown on Horwood’s map of 1803(Fig 8).

4.6.12 East and north of these cellars, in the roadways forming Nova Scotia and Murray Place, theremains of stone-built culverts were excavated, with later brick additions. No finds wererecovered to provide a date for the construction of these, but their alignment suggests thatthe adjacent properties were extant.

4.6.13 Under an act of Parliament (2°Geo III 1762; Anon 1848, 142) which permitted theconstruction of George’s Dock (Section 3.2.20), there was also a stipulation for theprovision of bridges over to Mann Island, which would otherwise have been cut off(Brazendale 2007, 48). In the south-west corner of the excavation of Area B, the eastabutment, 5666 (Fig 12), for one of these bridges was revealed, which was constructed inpink sandstone. The use of this material, and its position to the west of the yellowsandstone wall of the Dry Dock (5270), indicate that this bridge was a later replacement,and probably dated from the early nineteenth century, when the Dry Dock was adapted tocreate the wet Canning Dock (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 41).

4.6.14 Elsewhere in Area B, short lengths of stone footings, 5220, 5436, and 5481, in yellow andpink sandstone, may represent all that remains of buildings shown in this part of thedockside on Horwood’s map of 1803 (Fig 8). The buildings were almost certainlywarehouses, and were possibly associated with Joseph Bird (Section 3.2), given their closeproximity to Bird Street, and his apparent significance in the development of this part ofthe docks. No finds were recovered in association with these structural remains, althoughartefacts, dating from the late eighteenth century onwards, were recovered from the fill of awell, 5420, to the west of one of the buildings (Section 5.2).

4.7 PHASE 6 (DOCK POLICE OFFICE, FOREMAN SWEEPER’S OFFICE AND WEIGHINGMACHINE: 1830S)

4.7.1 The Dock Police Office first appears on historical mapping in 1836 (Fig 9), where the



structure was annotated as ‘Dock Police and Harbour Surveyor’s Offices’. Only a fragmentof these offices was revealed by the excavation, consisting of walling executed in finelytooled pink sandstone, which formed the foundations of the principal stepped entrance onthe south-facing elevation of the structure (5470; Fig 12). Plans produced by the CityEngineers show that the extensive basement of the structure extended beneath the frontstairs in order the maximise storage space (MDHB Drawing 105752). The remainder of theoffices lay to the north, beyond the limit of the excavation, with plans produced in 1892indicating that the offices were used by numerous groups associated with the day-to-daymaintenance and running of the dock, including the Graving Dock Office, MarineSurveyors and Public Enquiry Office (ibid). To the south of the stepped entrance lay afurther structure, 5408, which was essentially rectangular but with bayed ends, such that ithad an elongated octagonal plan; this was also constructed from finely tooled, well-constructed pink sandstone, and had a set of four hexagonal pink sandstone columns, 5627,5628, 5629, 5630, along its central, long axis, presumably to support the ground floor overan open-plan basement. This building is not shown in great detail on any historicalmapping, normally appearing only as a rectangle, with small square buildings adjacent toit, on contemporary maps; however, a schematic plan (MDHB Drawing 105752), drawn upby the City Engineers, shows this as a lozenge-shaped structure labelled as the ForemanSweeper’s Office. This lozenge-shaped structure, 5408, was identified during theexcavation, although it had been heavily disturbed by the later foundations for MediaHouse (Phase 9; Section 4.10). No finds were recovered from it, and the function of suchan office remains unclear, although it is not improbable that the position of ForemanSweeper was one awarded to the individual in charge of maintaining a level of order andcleanliness on the quays and wharfs around Mann Island and the surrounding environs.Why this position warranted such a well-constructed office is also unclear. Thecharacteristics of its construction, and its position relative to the Dock Police Office,suggest a comparable date and a close association.

4.7.2 This structure was clearly in use for long enough to be modified, with the blocking ofapertures in the west-facing wall (both low-level windows or doorways) at a later date byred brick infill 5625, 5664 and 5665. An east/west-orientated sandstone wall, 5626, butteda contemporary brick structure, 5421, and this appears to have been the eastern wall of theoffice that housed the Weighing Machine Keeper and Police. The two buildings appear tohave been linked by a small annexe, but it is not clear if this was part of the originaldesign. Both structures had been disturbed by the installation of a later stone-lined watertank, 5420, and deep drain 5636, which were probably associated with the Ventilation andPumping station that was constructed to serve the subterranean Mersey Railway (Section3.5). To the north-west of these buildings was a flat, rectangular brick structure, 5479,which represents the remnants of the base for the Mann Island weighing machine. Thisalso appears on the Gage map of 1836 (Fig 9).

4.7.3 A set of warehouses was first shown on the east quay of Manchester Dock on the OrdnanceSurvey map of 1850 (Fig 10). These were constructed to overhang the dock, for ease ofdischarge and loading, and the excavation revealed their timber supports, 7645 in (Fig 13),beneath the backfill of 1928–36 (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 36). These remains comprised aseries of eight vertical and four horizontal timber supports (made from pitch pine),projecting from the infilled dock (Plate 18). Due to the limitations of the formation levelfor the excavation work, the bottom of these timbers was not reached, nor was it possibleto see what sort of deposits they were embedded in. The timbers themselves were squared



off with chamfered edges and were fitted with large iron bolts and chains, whichcontributed to the structural integrity of the piers. Also associated with this structure was alarge sandstone counterbalance, identified at the rear (eastern side) of the eastern retainingwall for the Manchester Dock.

4.7.4 Gage’s map of 1836 (Fig 9) shows a completely different arrangement of buildings southof Murray Place (Section 3.4) from those on the map produced by Horwood in 1803 (Fig8). The Ordnance Survey mapping of 1850 (Fig 10) and 1891 reinforces this change,showing the area occupied by a large block of buildings, with frontages on to Nova Scotiaand Irwell Street, and apparently incorporating those shown in 1836. The cellars revealedin this area by the excavation (eg 5114; Fig 13) were probably, therefore, partly demolishedand backfilled in the early nineteenth century. This whole area was levelled again c 1920(Section 3.6).

4.8 PHASE 7 (MERSEY RAILWAY TUNNEL: 1881–6)4.8.1 The continued functioning of the tunnel to carry the Mersey Railway from James Street in

Liverpool under the river to Hamilton Square in Birkenhead, constructed in 1881–6,required pumps to clear water from the 8ft diameter (2.43m) drainage heading, and fans toprovide a supply of clean air, via the 7ft 2in (2.18m) ventilation heading (Section 3.5;Maund 2002, 6 and 15). The ‘Mersey Railway Pumping and Ventilation Station’ is markedon the 1891 1:500 Ordnance Survey Town Plan, at the north end of Canning Dock, an areathat coincided with Area B of the excavation, where it took the form of two large brickstructures. The construction of these heavily engineered structures necessitated the removalof part of the Foreman Sweeper’s Office, Weighing Machine Office and the weighingmachine itself. The Dock Police Office (or Harbour Master’s Office, as it was known bythis time; OS Map 1908; Fig 11) survived the advent of both the subterranean MerseyRailway and the construction of the Liverpool Overhead Railway.

4.8.2 The excavation revealed substantial pits, 5234 and 5328 (Fig 13), walled in brick andmostly intact (Plate 19), for the two ventilation fans (Maund 2002, 15), together withmounts for their horizontal axle bearings. The bases of the pits were finished in concrete,and were concave and semi-circular, to provide a close fit with the fans themselves. In thenorth-west part of Area B, a number of brick walls probably marked the outline of thebasement of the building which once housed the steam engines to drive the fans andoperate the pumps in the northern block, which functioned as a pumping station (Plate 20).

4.9 PHASE 8 (FIRST HALF OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY: 1900–50)4.9.1 The first half of the twentieth century saw a substantial change in the whole of the site.

Some of the buildings east of George’s Dock Passage were demolished, while at NovaScotia, the whole site, from Mann Island to Murray Place (Fig 11) and beyond, to the edgeof Canning Dock, was completely levelled, in c 1920 (Section 3.6). New buildings wereconstructed on both sites, whilst to the west, Manchester Dock, now redundant, was filledin (Plate 18), in 1928–36 (Section 3.6). The excavations were able to provide someevidence for all these changes.

4.9.2 In Area B, east of George’s Dock Passage, on the site of the Pumping and VentilationStation for the Mersey Railway tunnel, the OS map for 1927 shows that the buildings



housing the fans were altered substantially. Originally, fans of 30ft (9.14m) and 40ft(12.19m) respectively were provided at this station, but there was some evidence from theexcavation to suggest that the position of the mountings for one of the fans was altered,perhaps to accommodate a smaller size. It also appears likely that a number of short wallswere added at this time, creating rectilinear spaces (Fig 12; Plate 20). There was noevidence to show whether these were utilised, or remained as voids.

4.9.3 It may also be at this time that a rectilinear construction in brick, 5479, with metal fixingplates in its corners, and a drain across the floor, was inserted into a room of the Pumpingand Ventilation Station (Fig 12). No evidence was recovered to confirm its purpose.

4.9.4 North of the fan pits, the excavation revealed the remains of a clay-lined cistern, 5662, andthe cellar of a small, rectilinear, brick-built structure, 5421, immediately to the west, withwindows, presumably lit via a light well, and a possible fireplace (Fig 12). The purpose ofthese structures was unclear, and they do not appear on the historical mapping. No findswere recovered that might provide a date for them, but the cistern superseded the octagonalbuilding associated with the Dock Police, which itself no longer appears on historicalmapping after 1938 (OS 6” to 1 mile map).

4.9.5 In several parts of the site, expanses of cobbles and stone setts, laid in concrete, providedhard-standing used to park cars following the closure of the docks (Moss and Stammersnd). Although this type of surface is frequently regarded as ‘old’, the use of concrete in thiscase suggests a date of origin in the twentieth century.

4.9.6 Transit Shed and Voss Garage: prior to the start of the below-ground archaeologicalinvestigations, several twentieth-century buildings occupied the site, of which only theVoss Garage and Transit Sheds were recorded as part of a standing-building investigation(OA North 2007; Fig 23; Plate 21), since they were associated with the maritimemercantile function of the area. The Porsche Garage and Media House were deemed to beof limited historic interest and architectural value and were not subject to recording. TheVoss Garage and two adjoining Transit Sheds, which were constructed in 1921 to serve theneeds of the Canning and Manchester Docks (ibid), stood within Area A (Fig 2). TheTransit Sheds lay to the south of what had been Irwell Place, and extended as far as theGraving Dock. The excavations within Area A revealed the remains of four concretestanchions, aligned north/south, which marked the position of the transit sheds, followingtheir demolition (Section 3.6; OA North 2007), whilst north of the alignment of IrwellPlace, and built directly on to the gable end of the transit shed, was the Voss Garage, datingto the 1930s (Section 3.6; Plate 21). A brick structure, 7206, 3.8m square, and centrallydivided into two compartments, was revealed by the excavation in Area C, and probablyhoused diesel and oil tanks for the garage (Fig 18). Some brick walling on concretefoundations, and a set of steel anchor points mounted in concrete, also belong to thegarage. The outline footprint of the garage building itself lay beyond the limits of theexcavation, however.

4.9.7 Transit Shed (1921): the transit shed (Plate 21) was rectangular in plan, and was originallya single open space, which was subsequently sub-divided. It was a long, single-storeyrectangular structure (c110m by 30m; Fig 23) with a twin-gabled roof, and had extensivesteel trusses and bracing. Skylights had been let into the corrugated roof as the primarysource of light, and there were two doors for pedestrian access. The building was arrangedapproximately north-west/south-east and followed the line of the western limit of CanningDock. The external walls were constructed of hand-made brick, in an English Garden Wall-



style bonding.

4.9.8 The south-east wall was dominated by five concertina-type folding doors (Plate 21),spaced evenly along the wall, which were evidently replacements for large sliding doorsthat had fitted into tracks, still extant along the base of the wall. With the exception ofsome minor repairs and the addition of vents and utility access, this wall had not beensubject to much alteration. Guttering, probably aluminium, ran the length of the south-eastwall, with the downflow pipes placed at the south end of the building. The easternelevation of the transit shed was largely obscured by large wooden sliding doors, butinternally, a later breeze-block construction had been set against these doors, which werethus made redundant; these alterations were made shortly after the sheds became part ofthe Voss Motors showroom.

4.9.9 The internal floor plan of the transit shed (Fig 23) consisted of a single large open floor,subsequently sub-divided into three distinct areas. Office space and staff welfare facilitieshad been added to the floor plan, following a change of use from storage area to a workingspace for mechanics. The building was ostensibly constructed in one phase, with internalpartitioning added later, reflecting its change of use, probably sometime between the 1930sand 1940s. The floor throughout the transit shed was of poured concrete, althoughsubsequent excavations and trial trenching indicated the presence of an extensive earlierbrick floor. After the change of use from warehouse to automotive garage, two vehicleinspection pits were set into the floor of Room 1 and various partitioned rooms wereconstructed. A covered hallway was constructed at the same time as doors were introducedbetween the transit shed and Voss Garage, at the point which marked a spatial transitionbetween a work room and show room.

4.9.10 Voss Garage (1930s): the Voss Garage was a two-storey building that measuredapproximately 50m by 45m (Plate 22), which post-dated the transit sheds, and had beenconstructed after the infilling of the Manchester Dock, probably in the 1930s (Section3.6.5). It was aligned south-west to north-east (along its long axis) and squarely abutted thetransit shed (Fig 23). The rear and eastern elevations looked over Canning Dock, whilst thefront faced onto the former offices of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and to thewest were the remnants of Irwell Street and the infilled Manchester Dock (OA North2007).

4.9.11 The external walls of the garage were constructed of red brick, in an English Garden Wall-style bonding, using modern rectangular brick. Most of the internal walls were of solidconstruction (either breeze block or brick) although some of the office spaces hadplasterboard partitions. The roof was corrugated sheet metal, with inset skylights, and wassupported on an extensive steel framework of trusses.

4.9.12 The ground floor of the west wall contained two doors and three windows, thenorthernmost of which was a four-light floor-to-ceiling window. Five further windowswere incorporated into the first floor of the same elevation. A parapet ran the length of thiselevation to the straight joint with the transit shed (Plates 21 and 22). The eastern elevationof the building had no features beyond a modern fire door at the northernmost point.

4.9.13 The north façade of Voss Garage had finer bricks and a better bond, by comparison withthe more coarse brick of the south-east wall. A round window, or possible clock housing,had been blocked at the first-floor level of this elevation. This northern elevation exhibitedseveral Art Deco features; it was five bays wide, with bays two and four protruding by a



single course of brick at the first-floor level (Plate 22). The ground floor of the north wallhad floor-to-ceiling segmented rectangular windows in bays two and four. Sliding glassdoors were fitted into bays one, three and five, designed to allow vehicles access into thegarage/showrooms. A large arched window dominated each of these two bays and wasdecorated with pronounced mullions and an exaggerated keystone. A parapet, witharchitrave and cornice, ran the length of the north-west wall and was higher over bays twoand four, where it was designed in a classical style, with architrave and ionic volutes.

4.9.14 The internal floor plan had been extensively altered since its construction. The groundfloor was occupied by two large showrooms, and within these, the floor was tiled in whiteceramic, and both rooms had elevated platforms to display automobiles (Fig 23). Variousoffices and staff rooms lined the southern part of the ground floor, and judging by theconstruction and layout, it is likely that the rooms to the south-west were the originaloffices and welfare rooms for customers and staff. One larger room, later partitioned intothree smaller spaces, was constructed later. The roof, similar to that of the principal roomabove the transit shed, was a corrugated sheet-metal construction, and was twin-gabled andhipped at the north and south ends.

4.9.15 None of the rooms contained features of note, comparable to the Art Deco elementsdisplayed on the northern façade (Section 4.9.12). It is this facade which characterised thebuilding above all else, particularly since the design was clearly sympathetic to the ArtDeco ventilation tower for the Mersey Tunnels, located just north of the site (Section3.6.4).

4.10 PHASE 9 (LATER TWENTIETH CENTURY: 1950–2000)4.10.1 Phase 9a: in Area B, further development and adaptation of the site of the Pumping and

Ventilation Station, which had been rendered redundant in the early 1930s, was apparent,in the form of a substantial concrete sill, 5416, extending north/south across the whole site,bisecting the Foreman Sweeper’s Office (Section 3.4.11), along with other areas ofconcrete foundation (Fig 12). It extended across the subterranean remains of the ventilationstation, and abutted the surviving section of the northern retaining wall of the former DryDock at the southern limit of Area B. The north/ south alignment of the sill correspondedto the footprint of the depot built for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, on the siteof the boiler house for the Ventilation Station, and with the National Sea Training School,that was later changed in use to a media and printers’ office known as Media House (Mossand Stammers nd, 23), which was constructed in about 1950. This structure wasdemolished to facilitate the development on the eastern side of the former George’s DockPassage; subsequent trial trenching and excavation found it to have been largely within thefootprint of the former Pumping and Ventilation Station associated with the MerseyRailway (Section 4.8). Only one intrusive feature was observed, a modern oil tankassociated with heating for the building, which had removed the south-western section ofthe Ventilation station.

4.10.2 Phase 9b (Porsche Garage: c 1990s): Area C was occupied by the Porsche Garage (Fig2), a modern structure with the principal north-facing elevation being constructed of glassand steel, and the south-facing elevation being constructed of brick. This building wasconstructed in the 1990s as a retail garage (OA North 2007), and as such was purpose-builtto showcase vehicles on the ground floor and provide office space for sales staff on the



upper level. This structure had a very limited set of foundations, which had a relativelyminimal impact on the archaeology within Area C, allowing the survival of cellarsassociated with public houses and dwellings at Mann Island, and the area associated withthe infilled George’s Dock Passage (Section 3.6.1).

4.10.3 The north-facing elevation of the garage was characterised by its large frameless glasswindows and vertical steel supports, while the rear (south-facing elevation) was dividedinto four bays divided by brick-clad concrete pillars, constructed of reddish-brownmachine-made bricks, arranged in a stretcher bond with buff-coloured mortar and series offour decorative stringcourses of yellow brick, also in a stretcher bond. A furtherwindowless fifth bay was constructed entirely in this brick pattern.

4.10.4 The roof was constructed from a glass-clad steel framework and surmounted by a pyramid-shaped light well. The exterior walls of the structure were supported by large steel girdersset into the concrete base, and the rest of the structure comprised a durable metal framewith floor to ceiling panes of glass and a glass roof. The centre of the structure wascharacterised by a spiral staircase, which led to a suspended mezzanine office floor aroundthe central car showroom.



5. THE FINDS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

5.1.1 The quantities of artefacts recovered were divided by type (Table 4). The bulk of thematerial consists of pottery and clay tobacco pipe (2759 and c 20,000 fragments,respectively), almost all being recovered from layers of tipped backfill.

Type Total FragmentsPost-medievalpottery

2759

Claytobaccopipe

c 20,000

Metalwork 359Glass 1339Animalbone

c 300

Table 4: Artefact totals by type

5.2 THE POTTERY

5.2.1 In all, 2759 fragments of pottery, weighing 99.46kg, were recovered from a wide range ofcontexts, from occupation levels to land reclamation and backfill. It was all in goodcondition, being, for the most part, in small to medium-sized fragments, often withsubstantial parts of vessels represented. The range of fabrics was relatively restricted, butcomprised almost entirely late eighteenth- and nineteenth-century types (Table 5; Appendix1).

Fabric No fragments %age totalassemblage

Weight (g) %age totalassemblage

Agate wares 19 0.69 112 0.11

Black-glazedredwares

473 17.14 31,986 32.16

Creamware 723 26.21 6566 6.6

Industrialslipwares

69 2.5 717 0.72

Pearlwares 173 6.27 1600 1.61

Porcelain 30 1.09 198 0.2

Self-glazedredwares

71 2.57 3871 3.89

Staffordshire-type and otherslipwares

69 2.5 726 0.73

Stonewares,brown

117 4.24 8274 8.32



Stonewares,grey etc

19 0.69 3250 3.27

Sugar wares 719 26.06 37,954 38.16

Tin-glazedwares

34 1.23 261 0.26

Whiteearthenwares

137 4.97 1638 1.65

White salt-glazedstonewares

15 0.54 195 0.2

Other minorfabrics

91 3.3 2112 2.12

Totals 2759 99,460

Table 5: The fabrics present within the assemblage

5.2.3 A few sherds could be of medieval or earlier date, but, although their presence is of generalinterest, they have very little relevance for the interpretation of the site. A small out-turnedrim (24g) in a slightly sandy, orange oxidised fabric, with a reduced core reminiscent oflocal Romano-British fabrics, was from an uncertain feature (fill 5102) within thewarehouse complex at the north-west side of Area A beneath brick floor 5101, in room5708 (Fig 13). Two small abraded sherds in an unglazed orange-pinkish gritty fabric,together weighing 22g, seem likely to be medieval in date, but were residual. Finally, asmall fragment (14g) in a fine pinkish fabric, with a thin pale green glaze, is also mostlikely to be medieval, but came from an early nineteenth-century culvert.

5.2.4 A single rim fragment (44g), in an unusual, fairly soft, micaceous fabric, was noted in7260, a late fill in Area C, where it must be residual. Part of a large, globular vessel,ostensibly unglazed, this seems most likely to be a post-medieval import, perhaps anamphora-type vessel from Spain. A similar fragment, with splashes of glaze, was found inrecent excavations at Pier Head (OA North 2011b) and another was found at Castle Street,in an early eighteenth-century context (Innes and Philpott 1985, fig 42.314). Although indifferent fabrics, an unglazed handle from 5409, a nineteenth-century fill in Area B, and athick wall fragment from a late eighteenth-century make-up layer, 5336, could also be fromlarge storage vessels, although in the case of the latter, a Roman origin cannot be entirelyruled out.

5.2.5 Fine table wares: apart from the few early sherds, the tin-glazed wares (34 fragments,261g; Table 5) are probably amongst the earliest pottery from the site. Most derive fromflatwares with blue and white decoration (Plate 23), or from undecorated hollow-warevessels. It is difficult to differentiate tin-glazed wares on the basis of their fabric (Cotter2000, 229), but it seems reasonable to suggest that this group are probably all products ofLiverpool. They are all worn and relatively fragmentary, perhaps suggesting that, alongwith the small amounts of other early fabrics, these represent a largely residual element inthe assemblage. A single biscuit-fired fragment reflects Liverpool’s thriving eighteenth-century tin-glaze industry, beginning c 1710 and coming to an end by the 1780s (Hildyard2005, 100). Manganese Mottled wares are broadly contemporary with the main period oftin-glaze production (Kelly and Greaves 1974) but only seven fragments were noted



(104g). Although principally made in Staffordshire, evidence suggests that they were alsomade locally at Prescot (McNeil 1989; Davey 1991, 135), and at Buckley, in Clwyd, wherethey have been assigned to the period 1690–1720 (Amery and Davey 1979). It is likely thatproduction elsewhere continued into the late eighteenth century, as excavations at theGreatbatch pottery site in Fenton, Staffordshire, have produced finds dated between 1765and 1775, and probably from as late as 1782 (Barker 1984).

5.2.6 A small group of fragments of Staffordshire-type slipware was recovered, made from thelater seventeenth to the mid-eighteenth century (Barker 1993). The 42 fragments (283g),probably not representing more than a handful of vessels, came from some 20 contexts,presumably indicating the level of disturbance and mixing caused by repeated dumping onthe site. There was a single example of a large cup with trailed and combed decoration, anda band of spots around the rim (Plate 24), a style at its most popular between c 1700 and1720 (op cit, 15). Most, however, were from press-moulded dishes, current well into themid-eighteenth century (Poole 1995). There was also a small amount of other slipware (27fragments, 443g), made in different fabrics, but probably falling into the same date range.Some of this material might well derive from Buckley, in Clywd, which supplied NorthWales and the North West until the early eighteenth century, when its products becomeconfined to a more local market (Barker 1993, 12). It must be noted, however, that press-moulded dishes continued to be made in some small potteries into the nineteenth or eventhe twentieth century (op cit, 30–1).

5.2.7 There was a single large fragment (134g) from a North Devon Gravel-tempered ware jug,likely to be of eighteenth-century date (Noel Hume 1969, 133; Allan 1984). North DevonGravel-tempered ware has also been found in small quantities at other sites in Liverpool(see, for instance, Davey and McNeil 1985).

5.2.8 Early Blackwares were confined to three fragments (78g), with one possibly dating to thelate seventeenth or early eighteenth century. The lack of fine early Blackwares probablyreflects the date range of the site. Philpott (1985) has noted a serious decline in the use ofblack-glazed finewares in the later eighteenth century, and this is clearly reflected in thecurrent assemblage.

5.2.9 Similarly, only a small amount of white salt-glazed stoneware was recovered (15fragments, 195g), from ten contexts. This represents only 0.54% of the assemblage (0.2%by weight), which suggests that the principal period of deposition post-dated thewidespread use of this fabric, regarded as typical of the first three-quarters of theeighteenth century (Jennings 1981, 222). Most comes from eighteenth-century landreclamation, and is probably contemporary with the deposits.

5.2.10 Only three white salt-glazed vessels could be identified to form, all being plates, two withrims decorated in ‘barley’ pattern, and one in ‘dot, diaper and basket’ (following NoelHume 1969, 114, fig 35). Noel Hume (ibid) suggests that these patterns were not inproduction before the 1740s, when dinner services in this fabric first became popular(Hildyard 2005, 42), and are most likely to date to the 1750s–60s, when a wide range ofrim designs were in use (op cit, 44), although production continued into the 1770s. Thepoor quality of the moulding on a plate from reclamation material might suggest that it wassold as a second (Plate 25), and is thus likely to have been produced in Liverpool, asseconds tend to be sold close to their place of production. Liverpool’s white stonewareproduction sites are well known, but have not been explored archaeologically (op cit, 49),although wasters were noted amongst material excavated from dumps elsewhere on Mann



Island, during the excavation associated with the construction of the Canal Link (OA North2011a). White salt-glazed stoneware wasters have also, however, been found in Prescot(Holgate 1989), suggesting production there as well.

5.2.11 Six white salt-glazed stoneware fragments (124g) were decorated in the manner known as‘scratch blue’, introduced in the 1720s, most popular from 1745–55 (Savage 1952), butcontinuing in production in a ‘debased’ form until c 1790 (Noel Hume 1969, 118). As isthe case with one of the fragments recovered from these excavations, chamber pots oftenbore a medallion stamped with the cipher of George III (Plate 26). Similar chamber potswere also made in Pearlware between c 1785 and 1810 (Noel Hume 1969, 150).

5.2.12 Two small fragments were recovered of imported Westerwald stoneware (52g), probably ofearly eighteenth-century date (Hurst et al 1986, 222). The rim form of one suggests that itderives from a chamber pot, a commonly imported form from c 1710 (Noel Hume 1969,148) until the 1760s, when the market was taken over by English producers (ibid).

5.2.13 Small amounts of Chinese porcelain (five fragments, 59g) presumably reflect the large-scale eighteenth-century importation of Chinese teawares by the East India Company,which ended in 1791 (Hildyard 2005, 123). The remainder of the porcelain from the site(25 fragments, 139g) came from a variety of different contexts spanning a wide range ofdates. It was not analysed in detail, but seems most likely to be of Liverpool origin. Thelast decades of the eighteenth century saw a flowering of porcelain production in the city(op cit, 123) and excavations at Pier Head in 2007 produced biscuit-fired porcelain wasters(OA North 2011b).

5.2.14 Agate wares, popular from the 1750s to the 1770s (Barker and Halfpenny 1990), wererepresented in very small amounts (19 fragments, 112g), from only two contexts. A dishfragment is probably a Staffordshire product, and Noel Hume illustrates a vessel withsimilar rouletted slip decoration (1969, fig 49), dating to c 1760. Two fragments of tea-wares in black basalts or Egyptian black, an unglazed black stoneware made after 1750 byJosiah Wedgewood, and continuing in production by other potters throughout theeighteenth century (Noel Hume 1969, 121), were recovered from buildings on NovaScotia. The greyish appearance of the sherds might suggest them to be from theHerculaneum pottery in Liverpool, known to have produced such wares between 1793 and1841 (Hughes nd, 88). There was also a single fragment (4g) from a red stoneware teapot,a fabric made sporadically by a number of producers in the eighteenth century and into theearly nineteenth (Poole 1995, 68).

5.2.15 Twenty-nine fragments (336g) of pink lustre ware were recovered, representing threevessels, a small bowl (Plate 27), a jug, and the lid of a serving dish (Plate 27). Lustre warewas developed at the very end of the eighteenth century (Cotter 2000) but most dates to thenineteenth century, with painted designs most popular from c 1815 to the 1860s (Hughes1968).

5.2.16 Creamwares formed an important part of the assemblage, with 723 fragments (6.566kg)from 50 contexts, representing 26.21% of the total assemblage by fragment count (6.06%by weight). These were current from the mid-eighteenth century to the early nineteenthcentury, when they were largely replaced by Pearlwares (Noel Hume 1969, 125). Theyformed, by fragment count, the largest element of the entire assemblage (Table 5), but werenot particularly varied in form, being mainly flatwares and chamber pots, with only a fewfragments hinting at more decorative vessels. Although none are marked, it is quite



possible that some or all were products of the Herculaneum pottery, in Toxteth, which wasin production between 1793 and 1841 (Hyland 2005). Reclamation deposit 5730, west ofthe second sea wall (7638), held the greatest concentration, with 158 fragmentsrepresenting 21.85% of the creamware by fragment count, and 20.73% by weight; onlynine other contexts produced more than 20 fragments. Most of the vessels represented wereplates and shallow bowls with a variety of rim patterns (terminology after Noel Hume1969), mainly the ‘Royal pattern’ and ‘feather edge’, but including ‘spearhead’, as well asshell-edged plates, mainly in blue, but with a few green-edged examples. The latter havetheir origins in the later eighteenth century. From the 1750s, Liverpool was an importantcentre for undertaking transfer-printed decoration on pottery (Poole 1995, 74), and severaljugs bear the typically black, over-glaze transfer-printing associated with Messrs Sadlerand Green of Liverpool, who decorated a range of Staffordshire products in the yearsbetween 1763 and the 1790s (ibid). Substantial parts of two jugs bear Masonic designs(Plate 28), and smaller fragments show nautical or other themes. A coffee- or teapot lid isprinted in brown, again commonly used on creamwares.

5.2.17 Pearlwares, produced from 1779 (Coysh and Henrywood 1982), if not earlier, comprised6.27% of the assemblage by fragment count (173), and 1.61% by weight (1.6kg), beingrecovered from 36 contexts. They are, for the most part, tableware and tea wares, paintedor transfer-printed with mainly, but not exclusively, Chinese-influenced designs, includingwillow-pattern, which post-dates 1792 (Noel Hume 1969, 130). There are also shell-edgedplates, and a complete small, straight-sided cup, with a blue-glazed rouletted band at therim.

5.2.18 Later refined white earthenwares, dominating the market by c 1820 (Noel Hume 1969,130), are also present, forming 4.97% of the assemblage by fragment count (137) and1.64% by weight (1.65kg). The proportions and range of forms were almost identical tothose of the Pearlware (Section 5.2.17). Even considered together, these two wares are farout-represented by creamwares, perhaps suggesting that the peak period of deposition, atleast for fine tablewares, lay in the late eighteenth century, although it clearly continuedwell into the twentieth century. One of the few vessels bearing a maker’s mark isattributable to WH Grindley, working in North Staffordshire during the late nineteenth andtwentieth centuries (www.thepotteries.org/ mark/g/grindley.htm). The particular mark wasin use c 1936–54. Most of the vessels bear blue transfer-printed decoration, although blackand green printing was also noted, the latter appearing in the late 1820s (Neale 2004, 138).

5.2.19 Industrial slipwares represented 2.5% of the assemblage by fragment count (69) and 0.72%by weight (717g), and were present in 28 contexts. Decorative, but somewhat utilitarian innature, these late slipwares appeared in the late eighteenth century (c 1770) and remainedpopular through the nineteenth century, and into the twentieth (Rickard 2006). Mocha-typedecoration can be seen on some fragments (Plate 29), a form of decoration with a long life,possibly from the 1780s until the eve of World War II (op cit, 46). Pieces with decorationapplied with a multi-chambered slip trailer are probably nineteenth-century in date (op cit,13). Forms present include dishes, tankards, and chamber pots.

5.2.20 Coarse kitchen and storage wares: black-glazed storage vessels comprised 17.14% of theassemblage by fragment count (473) and, as might be expected from their substantialnature, considerably more (32.16%; 31.986kg) by weight. Made from the local red-firingcoal-measure clays, these wares are difficult to assign to a particular source. There is,however, much similarity between the fabrics seen in this group and those of the Prescot



kilns (Philpott 1982–3, especially Fabric 6), known to have been major suppliers of black-glazed wares to Liverpool in the eighteenth century (Davey 1991, 135). Buckley, in Clywd,also supplied Liverpool, especially in the earlier part of the eighteenth century, exportingmany of its products to America via the port (Noel Hume 1969, 133), but few of the black-glazed wares in this group show the lamination of red-and-yellow-firing clays regarded ascharacteristic of this pottery. This fabric group shows a very restricted range of forms,being dominated by only two utilitarian vessel-types: tall, more-or-less cylindrical, storagevessels with horizontal lug handles, similar to those seen at Prescot (Philpott 1982–3, figs10.7.5, 10.8.10, 10.8.16), and in excavations in South Castle Street, Liverpool (Davey andMcNeil 1985), and large pancheons and/ or bowls, again comparable to those from Prescot(Philpott 1982–3, fig 10.11.29), and the South Castle Street excavations (Davey andMcNeil 1985). Although there are numerous slight variations in rim form, which mightreflect different potters or sources, again all can be paralleled at Prescot (McNeil 1989) andin the assemblage from South Castle Street, Liverpool (Davey and McNeil 1985), and thusboth fabric and form suggest that most were supplied from Prescot. There are a fewthinner-walled sherds, perhaps deriving from jugs. The neck of a single vessel wasrecovered, and several bases seem to imply relatively small globular-bodied jugs.

5.2.21 A small group of self-coloured coarseware vessels was also noted, comprising 2.57% ofthe total assemblage by fragment count (71) and 3.87% by weight (3.871kg). They areclearly closely related to the black-glazed material, being in the same red-firing fabrics,and again they can be paralleled by material from Prescot (McNeil 1989). Where theirform could be reconstructed, these were all shallow bowls and dishes (Plate 30), althoughother vessel forms cannot be ruled out.

5.2.22 Brown stonewares, made in Liverpool from the late eighteenth century (Hildyard 2005,38), formed a relatively large element of the assemblage (Table 5) and comprisedutilitarian storage vessels, mainly small bottles, with smaller amounts of kitchenwares.There are several fragments of large globular bottles with narrow necks, possibly dating toafter 1785 (Green 1999, 151). Most of the more recent vessels are small bottles, oftenlabelled as containing blacking, a type mass-produced from c 1800 on (Hildyard 2005, 35).

5.2.23 Late stonewares of other colours made up 0.68% (19) of the overall assemblage (3.25kg,3.26% by weight) and were again utilitarian forms, including straight-sided 2lb jars andflat lids. A vessel with an unusual square neck came from a modern drain in Area B. As itbears a stamped registration mark, it can be dated with some precision, to after 1876, thedesign having been registered on 28th December of that year (Coysh and Henrywood1982, 299). A bottle from the base of the pit for one of the Pumping and Ventilation Stationfans bears the legend ‘F Metcalf and sons. Fine spirit and porter merchants. South Shields’.

5.2.24 Sugar wares: sugar wares (sugar-loaf moulds and syrup-collecting jars) comprised asignificant element of the assemblage (Table 5). Vessel fragments were recovered from 39contexts, but in few cases were more than 20 fragments recovered from any particularcontext. Two stand out as having particular concentrations, however: a dump, 5079, inArea A, which contained 42.9% of the sugar wares by fragment count (309), and 47.74%by weight (18.12kg); and a tipped layer, 5150, also in Area A, which produced 19.33% byfragment count, 21.18% by weight (8.04kg). Both contexts represent material depositedduring land reclamation.

5.2.25 No attempt was made to reconstruct the vessels, but there were large numbers of rimfragments from relatively large-diameter sugar-loaf moulds, and variation in the rim profile



made it clear that there were several moulds present. A number of fragments seem to haverows of small holes running across them; this does not seem to be a normal feature, butwas also seen in sugar-mould fragments from Princes Dock (OA North 2011b), and mightpoint to a more specialist use, or a specific manufacturer. There were, in addition, the basalapertures from two moulds.

5.2.26 There were also six rim fragments from syrup jars, and three small pinched feet in a fabricsimilar to the loaf moulds, which could derive from syrup jars. Almost without a doubt,these vessels originate from the local sugar-refining industry, and were made in Liverpool,or perhaps Prescot, where it has been established that sugar wares were produced duringthe early eighteenth century (McNeil 1989), in fabrics effectively identical to those fromthe excavation. Interestingly, syrup-collecting jars at Prescot are described as over-fired tovitrification, and all the rim fragments in this assemblage have been similarly over-fired. Itis quite possible that sugar wares were also made in Liverpool, although Davey (1991) hassuggested that, as several potters had interests in both production centres, a split was madebetween finewares, which relied on imported clays brought to Liverpool by sea, and sowere most economically made in Liverpool, and coarsewares, which used clays from thecoal-measures, made in Prescot, where they were locally abundant.

5.2.27 Tin-glazed tiles: in all, 12 fragments of tin-glazed tile (180g) were collected. Liverpoolwas a well-known eighteenth-century production centre (Ray 1973), with tiles known fromas early as 1716 (Honey 1969, 49). In 1756, a Liverpool entrepreneur developed thetransfer-printing technique, effectively moving tile production onto an industrial scale(ibid), and subsequently production in Liverpool appears, to a degree, to have specialisedin cheaply made tiles printed with designs in black. Although small, most of the fragmentsare obviously hand-painted rather than printed, most in blue (Plate 31), and one in a palemauve, presumably manganese. Two joining fragments from Area B are decorated withcarefully drawn polychrome flowers in the so-called ‘Fazackerley palette’, closelyassociated with Liverpool producers (Poole 1995).

5.2.28 Discussion: although a considerable amount of pottery was found during the excavation,the range of fabrics was fairly restricted, representing a typical late eighteenth- to earlynineteenth-century assemblage, with some fragments indicating continuing use of the siteinto the twentieth century. The peak period for deposition appears to have been the lateeighteenth century, a date reinforced by the relative lack of certain types of wares, whichwere no longer in use by this time. The assemblage reflects the wares made locally inLiverpool, perhaps at the Herculaneum pottery in Toxteth (Hyland 2005), or brought infrom associated production centres such as Prescot (McNeil 1989), and possibly Buckley(Davey 1991), which appear to have had close economic links to the city. From the 1750s,Liverpool had been closely involved in the decoration of a range of Staffordshire productsdestined for the American market (Poole 1995), and it is not impossible that some of thematerial from the site (perhaps the Creamwares) derives from that activity, although it isequally likely that they are all Liverpool-made. In addition, the presence of porcelain,creamware, and black-glazed redware wasters, and ‘seconds’, raises the strong possibilitythat much of the assemblage was dumped industrial waste, rather than originating indomestic middens.

5.2.29 Sugar wares (sugar-loaf moulds and syrup-collecting jars) comprised 38.16% by weight ofthe total pottery assemblage, and appeared mainly to have been dumped in the course ofland reclamation. Their form is strongly suggestive of an origin in Prescot, while their



presence is confirmation of the significant sugar trade through Liverpool, which increasedby 277% over the period 1785–1810 (Hyde 1971, 26).

5.2.30 The absence of imported material reflects that, for these products at least, the trading wasseemingly one way, and is in keeping with the premise of the triangular trade wherebyhome manufactured products, such as ceramics, were ultimately traded for growncommodities from the colonies, such as sugar.

5.3 THE CERAMIC BUILDING MATERIAL

5.3.1 A representative sample of 112 bricks was retained from a range of contexts across allthree main areas of the excavation. All appear to be late eighteenth-century/earlynineteenth-century in date, by an unknown maker. Some derived from the floors of thenumerous cellars, while others came from the foundations and walls of buildings on NovaScotia and north of Canning Dock. The majority of the bricks are hand-made, andcomprise examples of slop-moulded and, possibly, pallet-moulded bricks (Ryan 1996, 92).From data gathered on site, most of the hand-made and machine-made bricks fit into therange of 220–240 x 105–115 x 60–90mm, reflecting the thicker standard that prevailed inthe north of England in the eighteenth century (Brunskill 1997, 38).

5.4 THE CLAY TOBACCO PIPE

5.4.1 Fragments of clay tobacco pipe were typically found at Mann Island in two types ofdeposit: either as large dumps of clay pipe, including kiln waste produced in local pipe-making factories, which had then been dumped along the waterfront as part of the ongoingland reclamation process (only present within Area A), or as discrete deposits, wherefragments of used pipe (commonly broken stems and mouthpieces, but also including pipebowls) appear in occupational deposits in and around structures within Areas A, B and C(Fig 24). The assemblage principally consisted of a dump (5747; Phase 3) of wastematerial from a failed firing of a kiln, the manufacturer being identified as WilliamMorgan, whose workshop is listed on Harrington Street in the 1780s (OA North 2011a). Asimilar dump was recovered from the excavations on the site of the Liverpool Canal LinkMann Island section (Figs 24 and 25) immediately to the south (ibid).

5.4.2 The Mann Island excavation produced c 17,000 fragments of clay tobacco pipe, themajority from dump 5747. This context alone produced well in excess of 16,000 fragmentsof pipe, as well as more than 1000 pieces of kiln debris. This kiln group is by far the largestthat has yet been studied from Liverpool. There were also about 60 other excavatedcontexts that produced pipes, and these generated a total of exactly 750 fragments (103bowls, 614 stems and 33 mouthpieces). Most of these contexts contained ten or fewerfragments of pipe, but there were about ten contexts that contained larger numbers, withthree of these containing more than 50 fragments (discrete groups 5194, 5116 and smalldump 5147 containing 67, 151 and 179 fragments, respectively). Two of the largercontexts, pipe dump 5748 and pipe dump 5147, also contained kiln waste from WilliamMorgan’s kiln (31 and 179 fragments, respectively).

5.4.3 The pipe fragments from most of the contexts have been individually examined and noteson each context group entered onto an Excel worksheet, including a dating of the pipefragments present. The layout of the worksheet is based on the clay tobacco pipe recording



system that has been developed at the University of Liverpool (Higgins and Davey 2004).Some of the material was given different ‘object numbers’ though from the same context(catalogued as ‘Ref’ in the Excel worksheet), and so appear on different lines in theworksheet. The context summary shows the numbers of bowl (B), stem (S) andmouthpiece (M) fragments from each context and/or object number, and gives two dateranges for them, the overall range represented by the fragments and the most likely date ofdeposition based on the fragments present. The assessment and dating was prepared beforeany other context descriptions or relationships were considered. This methodology avoidsany pre-conceptions being formed as to the dating or interpretation of a particular deposit.A copy of the Excel worksheet is lodged in the site archive (Appendix 2).

5.4.4 Although a few seventeenth-century fragments were recovered, these are all residual in thecontexts in which they occur. The majority of the fragments date from the mid-eighteenth tothe late-nineteenth or early twentieth century. This makes dating from stems alone difficult,since this is a period over which their form changed little (DA Higgins pers obs). Theassociated bowl forms, marks and decorated pieces, however, all provide reliable datingevidence. Despite the presence of odd residual material, and the problem of dating plainstems accurately, this is still a good-sized assemblage of pipes and one that provides auseful framework for refining the site’s chronology and interpreting its post-medievalphases of use.

5.4.5 The pipes themselves are not only important for dating but also for interpreting the tradingconnections of the city. Despite Liverpool’s size and importance as a commercial centre,there has been very little previous excavation in the city and its archaeology remainspoorly understood. An English import is represented in the form of a spur bowl c1770-1810 with Masonic decoration from 5708, an early truncated cellar within Area A to thenorth-east of sea wall 5707 (Fig 13). Although Masonic bowl decoration was commonlyused in the Liverpool area, this piece is unusual because it is of a Yorkshire style (White2004). Pipes from London and the Netherlands were also recovered from the neighbouringCanal Link site (Higgins 2010) and so these imports, both domestic and international, arebeginning to contribute to a broader picture of the artefacts that were reaching Liverpool asa result of her coastal and overseas trading connections.

5.4.6 Pipes of different qualities are also evident; an elaborately decorated eighteenth-centurystem from 5122, a backfill layer overlying a Phase 6 cobbled area of quayside in Area A,represents a more expensive type of pipe from a local source. This stem dates from c1720-80, and has a tendril border and a decorated stem twist in the characteristic style of thepipes produced in Chester (Rutter and Davey 1980). The problem is that similar pipes withornately decorated stems were certainly being produced in Rainford (Dagnall 1987) andthey are to be expected in Liverpool as well, where the pipe makers would have beencompeting directly with those in Chester, especially for overseas orders.

5.4.7 During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, a distinctive range of decoratedpipes were produced in the Liverpool area, which employed particular motifs, such as astag’s head facing the smoker, Masonic emblems, a Liver Bird and flower / foliage motifs(Fig 26; DA Higgins pers obs). A range of these pipes was recovered, including aparticularly unusual one from Area B make-up layer 5299, which has a stag’s head facingthe smoker, and flutes on the opposing side. The right-hand side of the bowl is largelymissing, but has traces of Masonic decoration, which was common locally (DA Higginspers obs). What is unusual is the left-hand side, which depicts the Glasgow Arms (a bird



sitting on a tree with a bell and fish); this bowl dates from c1780-1810 and is the earliestknown example of the Glasgow Arms being used to decorate a pipe (this design is shownin various early twentieth-century trade catalogues, eg Jung 2003, and has been recognisedon various late nineteenth-century pipes, but never on anything earlier than c1860 (DAHiggins pers obs)). Another example, probably from the same mould, has been recoveredfrom the Manchester Dock excavations (MOL forthcoming; 266 <3110>). It seems thatthis design must have been made in the Liverpool area, presumably as an export styledestined for Scotland.

5.4.8 The excavations also produced some slightly later pipes, dating from c1820-50, whichwere typically decorated with a panel containing a variety of motifs above fluteddecoration and, sometimes, a shield facing the smoker with the maker’s initials. Anexample, marked EM in a shield, can be attributed to Elizabeth Morgan (working 1816-39;Higgins nd). There are not many late nineteenth- to early twentieth-century pipes, but afew occur, providing evidence for the pipes that were being used in the waterfront areas.These include examples marked with pattern names, such as ‘DUBLIN PIPE’ or‘LONDON’, as well as makers’ marks from firms in other areas, such as McDougall’s inGlasgow and Southorn’s in Broseley (Section 5.4.18). Both of these two firms had agentsin Liverpool during the second half of the nineteenth century and were shipping theirproducts out of the port (Higgins nd).

5.4.9 The assemblage from 5116, a deposit of reddish-brown sandy backfill mixed with otherfinds and fragments of detritus within small room 5115 (Fig 24), comprised 151 fragments,of which five were bowls, and there were 132 stems and 14 mouthpiece fragments. Thisassemblage is unusual on two counts; first, it contains very few bowl fragments and,second, many of the fragments have been badly burnt so that the pipes’ have becomeencrusted and/or warped. The range of makers’ marks, however, shows that the group isdomestic rather than kiln waste, with the most likely date of deposition being during the1850s. Of the 14 mouthpieces, one is on a very flat stem with a diamond-shaped cross-section. This terminates with a slight nipple and has been cut at the end. It is too badlyburnt to tell if there was any tip coating, but the stem may have been given a slight curve.The remaining 13 mouthpieces are all simple cut ends to round stems. One has no obvioussurface finish but the other 12 are all glazed: 11 with a pale lemon green glaze and onewith a dull purplish/brown glaze. There are also 16 other glazed stems, 15 of which havethe lemon green glaze on them. This was clearly the dominant form of tip coating at thetime. The other glazed stem has been too badly burnt to tell the colour but it is of adifferent form, since the tip is flattening out towards a nipple ending and it is clearly from ashort-stemmed cutty pipe.

5.4.10 There is part of an incuse stamp on the stem, reading ….Co / ….18, which can beidentified as part of a Southorn mark from Broseley in Shropshire (Higgins 1987). Anotherthin stem has a complete incuse stamp reading ‘W. SOUTHORN & Co / BROSLY 1SALOP’. Southorn’s used incuse stem marks from around 1850 until they closed in 1960.A third marked stem has the incuse moulded lettering ‘Mc DOUGALL / GLASGOW’within a relief-moulded beaded border. This firm operated from 1846-1967 (Anon 1987,354).

5.4.11 Further dating evidence is provided by one of the bowls, which has enclosed flutes at itsbase, the Prince of Wales feathers facing the smoker, a small star on each side of the spur,and JONES / LIVERPOOL moulded in relief on the right-hand side of the bowl (the left-



hand side is missing). The lettering is placed upright, running from top to bottom of thebowl. This is a very unusual location, without any known parallels. This pipe would havebeen made by either John Jones or John George Jones of Liverpool (father and son), whowere only working on their own account from c1837-57), thus providing a good date forthis piece (John Senior worked as Morgan & Jones from 1834-5 and then the business wasrun as Harris & Jones from 1859-98; Higgins nd). This also provides the 1850s date for thegroup as a whole, since the McDougall mark must be after 1846 and the Southorn stampsafter c1850, while this piece is probably no later than c1857. There is also a bowl fragmentthat appears to be from a second bowl from the same Jones mould, and a small decoratedfragment with a beehive on it. The final two pieces are spur fragments from differentbowls, but not enough survives to tell whether they were decorated or not.

5.4.12 The group retrieved from 5147 (a smaller dump of material, deposited as part of the landreclamation process, directly to the west of sea wall 5707, and east of Bird’s Slip withinArea A; Fig 24) comprised a total of 179 pieces, consisting of 29 bowls, 143 stems andseven mouth pieces. This group clearly represents a dump of pipe kiln waste, since none ofthe bowls has been smoked and many of the stems are over-fired or encrusted with clay orslag from having been used in muffle construction, or as slag/stem laminate within a kiln.Twenty-two fragments of pipe-kiln debris were also recovered from this context. This kilnwaste can be attributed to William Morgan Senior (born 1743; working c1767-1804; died1804; Higgins nd), since nine of the stems are stamped with a single line makers’ mark,and all the identifiable examples (where the maker’s name survives; six examples) read W.MORGAN LIVERPOOL. At least two different die types are represented, since one of themarks has a dot between the surname and place name, while another does not. There areseven cut mouthpieces, none of which is glazed, but there are also three stem fragmentswith glaze on them, showing that some of the pipes had pale yellowish-green glazed tips.The bowls are all rather fragmentary but it has been possible to identify eight differentmould types (Table 6), all of which can be matched with a dump of 1780s kiln waste,produced by William Morgan, which was excavated from the Liverpool Canal Link site(Higgins 2010; Fig 25). There are two examples from a mould with a star mark on eachside of the spur and one with a dot on each side, most clearly visible on the left. Given thatall eight of the mould types are duplicated in the 1780s dump, this group is likely to havebeen deposited at much the same time.

2010 Mould Type No of Frags Min No representedD 2 1F 1 1G 1 1H 2 2K 1 1M 1 1N 1 1O 3 2

Plain bowl fragments 17 -Total 29 10

Table 6: Mould Types from kiln waste 5147 attributable to William Morgan

5.4.16 The 22 pieces of kiln debris comprise one piece of slag; three pieces of slag/stem laminate;five pieces of thin clay sheet; one piece of grass- or straw-tempered clay, seven round rolls



and five flattened rolls. One of the round rolls is quite thick (about 14mm in diameter) butmost are in the 5-7mm diameter range and most show signs of having been curved. Both sizesshow stem impressions, sometimes on two faces (the inner and outer of the curve). Theflattened strips have generally been pressed against a flat surface on one side and one showsslight bowl impressions on the other surface. One of the flattened strips has been pressedagainst a sharply curved surface and appears to have made a ring originally, with the contactsurface on the inside. This ring would have had an internal diameter of about 75mm and thestrip is about 5mm thick, so that the outer side would have had a diameter of about 85mm.There appear to be light stem impressions on the outer surface.

5.4.17 The group retrieved from 5748 (a smaller dump of material, deposited as part of the landreclamation process, directly to the west of sea wall 5707, and east of Bird’s Slip withinArea A, and adjacent to dumped material 5747; Fig 24) comprised a total of 179 piecesconsisting of 31 bowls only. This context group must represent kiln waste, since none of thebowls has been smoked and there are also three pieces of pipe-kiln waste (two fragments ofclay sheet and a clay strip) in the same assemblage. The kiln waste can, however, be attributedto William Morgan Sr (born 1743; working c1767-1804; died 1804), since all of theidentifiable examples can be matched with a dump of 1780s kiln waste, produced by Morgan,that was excavated from the Liverpool Canal Link site (Higgins 2010; Fig 25). There are 22plain bowl fragments, including two with moulded marks (one with stars and one with ‘all-seeing eyes’), and nine mould-decorated fragments (eight from a stag and Masonic design andone from a scallop and crown design). Apart from 13 plain bowl fragments, all of the piecescould be matched with mould types identified from the 1780s Canal Link dump (Table 7).Given that all the mould types are duplicated in that dump, this deposit is likely to have beendeposited at much the same time.

2010 Mould Type No of Frags Min No representedD 8 3F 1 1H 2 1I 1 1L 1 1M 1 1N 1 1O 8 1

Plain bowl fragments 13 -Total 31 9

Table 7: Mould types from kiln waste 5748, attributable to William Morgan

5.4.18 Marked Pipes: apart from the large kiln groups (Section 5.4.19), 36 marked pieces werefound during the excavations. These carried a total of 39 marks, since three of thefragments had double marks (moulded name or initials on the bowl as well as mouldedsymbols on the spur; Table 8).

Cxt Mark Position / Type Decoration Date Comments5116 JONES /

LIVERPOOLbowl mark -

mouldedflutes and Princeof Wales feathers

1850-60 An unusual decorated bowl, markedJONES/LIVERPOOL in upright lettering on theright-hand side (the left-hand side is missing) andwith a star mark on either side of the spur. Thisbowl can be attributed to John Jones of Liverpool



(father and son), who were working on their ownaccount from c1837-57 (Higgins nd). There ispart of a second bowl from the same mould in thesame context, but without either of the markssurviving. The context from which this piece wasrecovered probably dates from the 1850s(Higgins nd).

5194 EB bowl mark -moulded

stag's head, flutesand shield

1820-50 The upper part of a bowl (spur missing),decorated with a stag's head, flutes, and shieldcontaining the relief-moulded letters EB. Thesedo not match any known Liverpool maker and itcould be an 'import' from a neighbouring centre,such as Rainford.

5194 EM bowl mark -moulded

stag's head, flutesand shield

1816-39 A bowl decorated with a stag's head, flutes, and ashield containing the relief-moulded letters EM.These appear twice, once faintly at the sides ofthe shield, and once, more boldly, beneath thestag's head. These initials can be attributed toEliza/Elizabeth Morgan, who is listed inLiverpool directories from 1816 to 1839. There isalso a moulded double ring mark on the sides ofthe spur (qv) (Higgins nd).

5249 ?J J bowl mark -moulded

flowers, star,etc

1837-57 Lower part of a bowl that stylistically datesfrom c1820-50. This is decorated with aspray of flowers or berries towards the baseon each side, and a star on the right-handside of the bowl (left-hand side is missing).There is a double-lined shield facing thesmoker, with the initials ?J J. This can beattributed to John Jones, one of the principalmanufacturers in Liverpool from c1837-57.Stem bore 6/64".

5478 J … bowl mark -moulded

scalloped,shield, etc

x 1

1820-50 Bowls of c1820-50, with scallopeddecoration with stars and foliage, and ashield facing the smoker, with just the initialJ surviving of the Christian name. The spuris marked with moulded stars (qv).

5116 stars heel/spurmark -

moulded

flutes andPrince of

Walesfeathers

1850-60 An unusual decorated bowl markedJONES/LIVERPOOL in upright lettering onthe right-hand side (the left-hand side ismissing) and with a star mark on either sideof the spur. This bowl can be attributed toJohn Jones of Liverpool (father and son),who were working on their own accountfrom c1837-57. There is part of a secondbowl from the same mould in the samecontext, but without either of the markssurviving. The context from which this piecewas recovered probably dates from the1850s (Higgins nd).

5147 stars x 2 heel/spurmark -

moulded

1780-1800

Two plain bowls from a deposit of kiln wastedating from c1780-1800, with moulded starmarks on each side of the spur. These pipescome from William Morgan's workshop(mould type H; Higgins 2010).

5147 dot heel/spurmark -

moulded

1780-1800

Plain bowl from a deposit of kiln wastedating from c1780-1800, with a moulded dotmark on each side of the spur (not very clearon right side). This pipe comes from WilliamMorgan's workshop (mould type G; Higgins2010).



5155 W? B heel/spurmark -

moulded

1710-70 The bowl is of a typical London style (Type25; Atkinson and Oswald 1969) and has astem bore of 5/64". There is no internal bowlcross but the heel is marked with relief-moulded initials. The Christian initial ischipped and trimmed short, but appears tohave been a W, while the surname is B.Although similar bowl forms were made inChester (Rutter and Davey 1980), the use ofmoulded initials at this date is extremely rarein the North West (DA Hiiggins pers obs)and this is most likely to be an importedexample from London, where this form ofbowl and style of marking was extremelycommon from c1700-70 (Higgins nd).

5194 Ring anddot

heel/spurmark -

moulded

leaf seamsand flowerdesigns onthe bowl

1820-50 Bowl of c1820-50 with a ring and dot markon the sides of the spur. The bowl has alocally common scheme of decoration, withthree stylised flowers (the central one theright way up, flanked by two inverted ones)on each side of the bowl and leaf decoratedseams.

5194 doublering x 2

heel/spurmark -

moulded

one plain andone with

stag's head,flutes and

shield

1820-50 Two bowls of c1820-50 with a double ringmark on each side of the spur. One of thesehas a plain bowl but the other is decoratedwith a stag's head, flutes and shield. Theshield contains a moulded EM mark (qv).

5194 illegiblex 2

heel/spurmark -

moulded

leaf seams,flutes, etc

1820-50 Two bowls of c1820-50 with illegible markson each side of the spur. These are just crudelumps and may never have been intended tobe actual letters or symbols. Both bowlshave leaf seams. Only a very small part ofone survives, with traces of mouldeddecoration on the bowl sides. The other haspanel decoration above enclosed flutes.There is a bird on the right-hand side and,probably, a wheat sheaf on the left (badlyobscured by rust and staining).

5409 doublering

heel/spurmark -

moulded

fluted, etc 1810-50 Bowl fragment of c1810-50, with a doublering mark on both sides of the spur and thestart of fluted decoration on the bowl, whichis largely missing.

5478 stars x 2 heel/spurmark -

moulded

wheat sheafand bird x 1;

scalloped,shield, etc

x 1

1820-50 Two bowls of c1820-50, both with stembores of 5/64" and star marks on each side ofthe spur. One bowl is decorated with a paneldecoration, above enclosed flutes, depictinga wheat sheaf on the left side and a bird onthe right. The other has scalloped decorationwith stars and foliage, and a shield facing thesmoker with just the Christian name initial Jsurviving (qv).

5748 stars heel/spurmark -

moulded

1780-1800

Plain bowl from a deposit of kiln wastedating from c1780-1800, with a moulded starmark on each side of the spur. This pipecomes from William Morgan's workshop(mould type H; Table 7).

5748 eyes heel/spurmark -

moulded

1780-1800

Plain bowl from a deposit of kiln wastedating from c1780-1800, with a moulded starmark on each side of the spur. This pipecomes from William Morgan's workshop(mould type I; Table 7).

5116 McDOUGAL

L /GLAS

GOW

stem mark -moulded

1850-60 A McDougall stem from Glasgow - incusemoulded lettering within a relief-mouldedand beaded border, with loops at the ends.This firm operated from 1846-1967 but thestem comes from a group that probably datesfrom the 1850s (Higgins nd).



5117 ??GARIBALDI / …..

stem mark -moulded

1850-1900

A cutty pipe of c1850-1900, with a mouldedmark on the sides of the stem. Thiscomprises incuse moulded lettering within arelief-moulded beaded border with pointedends, but the mark has either worn almostcompletely smooth or has been deleted fromthe mould. Very faint shadows suggest thefirst side may have read GARIBALDI, apopular pattern name for pipes following therise to popularity of the Italian General ofthat name (DA Higgins pers obs). Stem bore5/64"

5118 LONDON /LONDON

stem mark -moulded

1850-1900

An almost complete spurless style with thickwalls. This has a good form and is neatlyfinished. On the stem sides is the incuse-moulded sans-serif lettering LONDON /LONDON, within a relief-moulded beadedborder with loop ends. It is possible thatLONDON represents the pattern name forthis particular pipe, rather than necessarilybeing its place of origin. Stem bore 5/64".

5132 DUBLIN/ PIPE

stem mark -moulded

1850-1910

A thick piece of stem with the incuse-moulded sans-serif lettering DUBLIN /PIPE, without any border. This would havecome from an Irish-style cutty of c1850-1910. Stem bore 5/64" (Higgins nd).

5116 W.SOUTHORN &

Co /BROSLY1 SALOP

stem mark -stamped

1850-60 A thin stem with an incuse stamped WilliamSouthorn & Co mark from Broseley. Thisfirm operated from c1823-1960, but thisstyle of mark dates from after c1850, and thecontext it comes from suggests an 1850s datefor this example (Higgins 1987).

5116 …Co /…18

stem mark -stamped

1850-60 A stem with burnt glaze and part of anincuse-stamped Southorn mark fromBroseley (Higgins 1987). This firm operatedfrom c1823-1960, but this style of markdates from after c1850, and the context itcomes from suggests an 1850s date for thisexample.

5147 W.MORGANLIVERPOOL

x 9

stem mark -stamped

1780-1800

Nine stems with complete or partial WMorgan stem stamps. From a kiln dump ofc1780-1800.

5271 J.ATHERTO…

stem mark -stamped

1769-1805

Quite a thick stem with a stem bore of justover 6/64", stamped J.ATHERTO…. JamesAtherton is recorded as a Liverpool makerfrom 1769-1805 (Higgins nd).

5273 ....LIVERPOOL

.

stem mark -stamped

1770-1820

Stem of c1770-1820, with the end of aLiverpool maker's stamp on it (with a fullstop after the word 'LIVERPOOL.'). Thestem bore is rather irregular, but about 6/64".

5763 CHA. … stem mark -stamped

1760-1820

One partial stem mark of c1760-1820survives (stem bore 5/64"). This starts'CHA.', with a dot separating the next letter,which appears to have been a B, E, F, H or P.The only recorded Liverpool maker at thisdate called Charles and with one of thesesurname letters is Charles Powell, recordedworking from 1790-6 (Higgins nd).

7212 C.KENYON -

LIVERPOO…

stem mark -stamped

1770-1840

An almost complete stem mark of CharlesKenyon of Liverpool, who is recordedworking from at least 1772-1811. Stem bore5/64" (Higgins nd).

Table 8: Maker’s marks arranged by mark type and context

5.4.19 The Kiln Groups: although there are individual pieces of pipe that are important inthemselves (Section 5.4.18), most of these come from small context groups and only



provide individual insights into the history of the city. Of much more significance are thethree dumps of kiln waste that were used as landfill within Area A (5147, 5747, 5748;Sections 5.4.12 and 5.4.17; Fig 24), all of which can be identified from the associated stemmarks and/or bowl forms as having come from William Morgan’s workshop. All three ofthese dumps contain a very similar range of bowl forms to the Morgan kiln waste of the1780s recovered from the Canal Link site (Higgins 2010; Fig 25), and are all likely to bebroadly contemporary. Kiln dump 5747 is by far the largest and most important of the threeindividual dumps, and is the largest dump that has yet been studied from the city; for thefirst time, it allows the full range of Morgan’s products at this time to be identified withconfidence.

5.4.20 The kiln dump from land reclamation deposit 5747 probably dates from the 1780s, bothbecause of the similarity of forms with the Canal Link finds and because the Mann Islanddeposits are likely to have been laid down at this time as the Mersey was reclaimed for theconstruction of the Manchester Basin towards the end of the 1780s (Section 3.3.1). Thisallows the waste to be attributed to the first William Morgan, who was born in 1743 and isrecorded as working from c1767 until his death in 1804 (Higgins nd).

5.4.21 William Morgan and various members of the Morgan family were working as pipemakers inLiverpool during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and William Morgan (I)appears to have been one of the principal members of this family. William was the son ofHenry Morgan, tailor, born on 13th November 1743 and baptised on 20 November 1743 at StNicholas’ Church, Liverpool (Higgins 2008). It is unclear exactly when he started pipemaking, but he appears regularly in the earliest trade directories from 1767 onwards (eg Gore1767). He would only have been 23 or 24 in 1767 and is unlikely to have been working on hisown account any earlier than about 1764, when he would have been 21. The directories showthat he moved between several different addresses during his career, as follows (the propertynumber, where listed, is given in brackets):

Hackin’s Hay Gore 1767; 1769

Harrington Street Gore 1772; 1773; 1774 (44); 1777 (44); 1781 (40); 1787; 1790 (40)

Gradwell Street Universal Directory 1794; Gore 1796 (6); 1800

Parliament Street Gore 1796.

5.4.22 The early directories usually give the working address, but the 1796 directory gives Williamas a pipe maker in Gradwell Street, with a pipe manufactory being listed in Parliament Streetas well. This is the only reference to William having a Parliament Street address, but variouslater members of the family are recorded as having a pipe warehouse and/or manufactory inParliament Street between 1816 and 1839 (Gore 1816; 1821; 1823; 1825; 1827; 1832; 1834;1835; 1837 and 1839), and this may well have been the same site that was originallyestablished by William in about 1796. The other three addresses are likely to represent thelocations of his earlier workshops, with the two different property numbers in HarringtonStreet simply reflecting late eighteenth-century changes in the street numbering, rather than anactual change of workshop location.

5.4.23 Further information about William (I) can be gleaned from the Liverpool parish registers;although these have not been systematically checked, the burials at St Nicholas show that helost at least six children between 1777 and 1798: James (1777); Thomas (1777); Thomas(1779); John (1780); Kitty, aged five (1794); and Elizabeth, aged ten (1798) (LRO 283 1/6;283 1/7). The 1794 entry is particularly useful, since it records that Kitty was the daughter of



William Morgan and Mary Hayes, his wife. His wife’s maiden name hints at an interestingmarriage link between the Morgan and Hayes families, both of whom were prominentpipemakers in Liverpool at this time (Higgins 2008). There is also evidence that not only wasWilliam literate but also actively involved in the local community, since Gore’s Directory of1790 lists him as ‘pipemaker and clerk of St George's’ (where his daughter Betty, born 13thApril 1788, was baptised on 11th May 1788; Gore 1790), while the St Nicholas ParishRegister entry for the burial of this same daughter in 1798, now given as ‘Elizabeth’,describes him as a pipemaker and clerk of St Peter's (LRO 283 1/7). William Morgan died in1804 and the record of his burial in the St Nicholas registers notes that he died on 14thOctober 1804 aged 61, was buried on 18th October 1804 and was late Clerk to St Peter'sChurch (LRO 283 1/8). William is described as a pipemaker in the burial register but the lastreference to him in the trade directories was in 1800, suggesting that he may have retired atabout this time. This suggestion is reinforced by Gore directory entries of 1803 and 1804,listing a ‘William Morgan Junior’ in Gradwell Street, which presumably relate to a son of thesame name having taken over the business.

5.4.24 The William Morgan Kiln Waste (Dump 5747): this dump probably dates from the 1780sand so is most likely to have come from the period when William Morgan was working inHarrington Street c1772-90 (Gore 1772; 1790; Section 5.4.21). The kiln waste recovered fromthis site was enumerated as containing 16,377 pieces of pipe and 956 pieces of kiln debris.These figures, however, are both acknowledged to be under-estimates, since there is aconsiderable quantity of unsorted residue that still contains large numbers of small fragmentsof both pipe and kiln waste. These have not been extracted, since they are all relatively smallpieces and unlikely to produce any useful return from further sorting.

5.4.25 The important factor about this group, however, is its size. It is known that pipe makers at thisperiod would have produced a range of different pipe styles for different markets including, inLiverpool, the export trade (Jackson and Price 1974, 84). Small kiln groups rarely providesufficient examples to be sure that a full range of products has been identified. It is only whenmultiple examples of all types represented within a given group have been identified that thefull range can be stated with some confidence. This kiln group is some ten times larger thanany that has previously been studied for Morgan and so allows his production range at asingle point in time to be examined with some confidence.

5.4.26 The methodology adopted for studying this group was to identify the individual mould typesrepresented, so as to establish the number and range of moulds that were being used. Sincemost of the bowl forms were plain, this had to be done using small scratches or mould flawsthat left some sort of mark on the surface of the pipe itself. These flaws are sometimes so finethat they can only be seen clearly under a lens and are most frequently encountered around theheel or spur. This was the most difficult part of the mould to bring to perfection and so oftenretains marks from where the metal was worked. This part of the pipe is also the most usefulto identify, since it can be used to provide a count of the minimum number of examplesrepresented. Each bowl only has one heel or spur (or bowl junction if it is a spurless type),thus providing an easy means of counting. This also avoids the problem of decorated bowlfragments being easy to identify, as opposed to plain bowls, so leading to a higher fragmentcount for decorated forms if just the total number of pieces is considered.

5.4.27 When the Morgan kiln waste from the Canal Link site (Pier Head section) was studied(Higgins 2010), there was only a relatively small sample, and much of this was contaminatedwith waste from another factory. As a result, there was uncertainty over whether the mould



types could reliably be attributed to Morgan, and the range of forms identified often relied onjust a few examples of each (and sometimes just one). This much larger group has allowed the2010 findings to be tested and a much more robust range of forms identified.

5.4.28 In 2010, the individual mould types were identified using letters (A, B, C, etc) and these samedesignations have been retained here (Tables 6 and 7). From the 2010 work, it was suggestedthat Morgan was using 15 mould types during the 1780s (A-O), three of which were specificforms only produced for the export market (A-C). Two of the forms were only represented bysingle fragments, including one that was only represented by a single spur knocked off a pipebowl (J). This study was able to find multiple examples of 14 of these mould types, andconfirms that they have been correctly identified as Morgan product (Fig 26). The only formnot represented was J, which suggests that the 2010 find was just a stray spur from pipeproduced elsewhere, or even a fragment of later date that was intrusive to the deposit.

5.4.29 As well as the 14 bowl forms previously identified, analysis of this new kiln group has shownthat there are at least two, and possibly as many as five, more types that were being producedby Morgan than had previously been recorded, bringing the total number of forms representedto 16-19. The two definite mould types are represented by multiple examples of small plainbowls, similar to types K and M. The other three types are only represented by one or twoexamples (Fig 26), and so they cannot be attributed with confidence, since they could be straypieces from elsewhere that have got into the kiln dump. Having said that, they do not appearto have been smoked, and two of these types look like kiln wasters, which strengthens thecase for their having been made by Morgan. All three types had plain bowls. Two are broadlysimilar to mould type G, one with dots on the spur and one without, while the other was justrepresented by heel fragments, with a dot on either side. All of the mould types represented inkiln dumps 5147 and 5748 also fell within the 14 mould types initially identified (Section5.4.12) and so, taken together, it now seems that we can reliably say that Morgan wasproducing around 16-19 patterns of pipe during the 1780s, at least three of which werespecifically produced for the export trade. The recovery of earlier and later groups is nowneeded to explore how his production range changed over time and how frequently themoulds needed to be replaced.

5.4.30 Summary and Conclusions: during the eighteenth century, Liverpool grew to become one ofthe most important trading ports in the world. By the 1830s, Lancashire (which then includedLiverpool) contained no less than 17.4% of all English pipemakers (Higgins 2008, 138) andLiverpool had grown to become a major pipe production and export centre. More than 350pipemakers have been documented working in the city, and pipes bearing Liverpool marks ordesigns are well known from all around the world – from fur trapping sites in Canada, to theCaribbean, and from Africa to Australasia. Despite this, there has been virtually nopublication of pipes from the city itself and not a single group of kiln waste has yet beenpublished. This makes it almost impossible for researchers elsewhere even to identifyLiverpool pipes, let alone to date or interpret them accurately. The finds from this excavationtherefore make a very significant contribution to knowledge and one that will be of relevanceto archaeologists in many parts of the world.

5.4.31 The smaller context groups have provided evidence of Liverpool’s eighteenth-century tradenetworks, with finds from London, Yorkshire and the Netherlands being particularlynotable pieces. Other finds from the site reflect the continued importance of Liverpool as atrading centre into the nineteenth century. The pipe with the Glasgow Arms (Section 5.4.7)was probably made in Liverpool for the domestic market, while products from



McDougall’s and Southorn’s (Section 5.4.8) show goods from other parts of Britaincoming into Liverpool, some destined for shipment overseas.

5.4.32 The most important groups from the excavation, however, are the three Morgan kilngroups, dating from the 1780s. These tips come from the workshop of William Morgan (I),who was one of the most prominent Liverpool manufacturers and exporters during thisperiod (Higgins 2008). The large tip confirms that Morgan was producing around 16-19patterns of pipe at any one time and that at least three of these patterns were specificallydesigned for the export trade. Several other kiln tips have recently been excavated inLiverpool (OA North 2011b) and a detailed analysis and comparison of the Morgan tipswith these other finds will provide a sound framework for the identification andinterpretation of Liverpool pipes that will be of international significance.

5.5 THE METALWORK

5.5.1 In total, 359 fragments of metalwork were recovered. The majority of the materialconsisted of ironwork, such as nails and other fastenings, with no significant analyticalvalue. An assemblage of 17 copper-alloy coins and tokens was recovered, however (Table9); all but one of them was in extremely poor condition, and most have provedunidentifiable, except on grounds of size.

Context Material Type Condition Description Period5077 Copper

alloyFarthing? very poor Badly corroded, illegible Post-medieval, not

closely dated5117 Copper

alloyToken very poor Badly corroded. Possibly

shows the arms ofLiverpool. Perhaps token ofThomas Clarke

Issued 1791–4http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections).

5194 Copperalloy

Penny very poor Badly corroded, probably apenny with right-facingBritannia

George IV; issued1825–30 (Spink andSons Ltd 2010)

5194 Copperalloy

? very poor Badly corroded, illegible Post-medieval, notclosely dated

5194 Copperalloy

? very poor Badly corroded, illegible Post-medieval, notclosely dated

5194 Copperalloy

Penny very poor Badly corroded, illegible Post-medieval, notclosely dated

5194 Copperalloy

Halfpenny? very poor Badly corroded, illegible.Britannia left-facing. Third(1799) or fourth (1806)issue.

George III (Spink andSons Ltd 2010)

5194 Copperalloy

Halfpenny very poor Badly corroded, illegible George III?(Spink and Sons Ltd2010)

5396 Copperalloy

very poor Badly corroded, illegible Post-medieval, notclosely dated

5708 Copperalloy


5708 Copperalloy

Penny good Penny. Third issue George III; 1799(Spink and Sons Ltd2010)

5708 Copperalloy


5712 Copperalloy

Halfpenny very poor Badly corroded, illegible Post-medieval, notclosely dated

5754 Copperalloy

Farthing? very poor Badly corroded, illegible Post-medieval, notclosely dated



Context Material Type Condition Description Period5754 Copper

alloyFarthing? very poor Badly corroded, illegible Post-medieval, not

closely datedU/S Copper

alloyHalfpenny very poor Badly corroded, illegible Post-medieval, not

closely datedU/S Copper

alloyHalfpenny very poor Badly corroded, illegible Post-medieval, not

closely dated

Table 9: Coins from the site

5.5.2 Size suggests that most of the coins are halfpennies or farthings, very small denominationcoins which might not have been sought for particularly assiduously when lost ordropped. The only firmly identified example is an unusually well-preserved (for the site)penny of 1799 from the cobbled floor, 5708 (Fig 13), of a small single room cellar inArea A, identified as part of the early development of Nova Scotia and visible on the1803 Horwood Map (Section 4.6.11). Two of the coins from deposit 5194 can also berelatively confidently identified as coins of George III, and are probably the third orfourth issue of his reign (Spink and Sons Ltd 2010), dating to 1799 and after 1806respectively. This deposit represented the earliest phase of backfill within two small brickchambers constructed against the west-facing elevation of the earliest sea wall, 5707 (Fig13). A third coin from the same context is a penny of George IV, second issue, dated1825–30 (ibid).

5.5.3 Two halfpenny tokens were noted, one from backfill deposit 5117, within the northernarea of warehousing in Area A, and the other from backfill deposit 5712. The copper diskfrom 5117 is an issue of the Associated Irish Mine Company or AIMC (Dalton andHamer 1915, token 428), which had an agent and offices in Liverpool. The token bearsthe coat of arms of the AIMC, depicting a windlass over a shield decorated with thecompany's coat of arms, consisting of two spades, three picks and a horn of gunpowderfor blasting. The inscription around the shield reads ‘ASSOCIATED IRISH MINECOMPANY 1789’. On the opposite side of the token, in reference to the Irish heritage ofthe company, is the image of St Patrick, shown in profile and surrounded by the words‘CRONEBANE HALF PENNY’ (Object 11766). The token from backfill deposit 5712has been identified as a so-called Portsea halfpenny of 1794, which appears to bear thearms of the City of Liverpool, and bears some resemblance to tokens issued for ThomasClarke during the period 1791–4 (National Maritime Museums website;http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections).

5.6 THE GLASS

5.6.1 In all, 1339 fragments of glass were recovered, of which 1208 were from a limited range ofblown and moulded vessels, and 131 were small fragments of window glass. All were inrelatively good condition, although some vessels, especially those from earlier contexts,bore iridescent weathering and some flaking of surfaces. In general, the fragments werelarge, with the more robust parts of vessels, like bases and necks, often surviving complete.

5.6.2 The majority of the glass comprised bottles of various forms and types of manufacture.Most of the bottle assemblage (1014 fragments, c 84%) were dark green wine and beerbottles, with 307 fragments from this group (c 30%) being the distinctive dark olive greenwine bottle or ‘English bottle’, in use from the late seventeenth century, throughout theeighteenth, and into the early nineteenth century (Hurst Vose 2008, 367). Only one



‘English bottle’, from a residual context, was earlier in date than the end of the eighteenthcentury, its rim form suggesting a date in the 1760s. Others were of late eighteenth- orearly nineteenth-century date. By far the majority of the dark green bottle glass, however,was from two deposits: one, 5118, the early twentieth-century demolition backfill of acellar between Irwell Place and Murray Place (Fig 21); the other a dense glass layer, 5154,located within the cut of pit 5152, which itself was located within room 5114 in Area A(Fig 13). The nature of this feature was uncertain, but it is likely that the room was oncepart of a public house or victuallers, many of which existed in Nova Scotia and MannIsland from the early nineteenth century until the end of the 1920s, when the area waslevelled (Section 4.7.5). These produced 160 and 628 fragments respectively. All are fromnarrow diameter (76–8mm) mould-blown bottles, with a distinctive embossed four-pointedstar on the base, and, on a simple base count, there were at least 37 bottles in 5154. Theseare unlikely to be any earlier than the mid-nineteenth century in date and could beconsiderably later.

5.6.3 Other late eighteenth-century dark green glass vessels were represented by severalfragments from square or polygonal-sectioned bottles, one from a reclamation layer westof the second sea wall, 7638 (Section 4.2.2), and others from contexts where they are likelyto be residual. Again, these probably date to the late eighteenth to early nineteenth century.Part of the rim of a very thick-walled vessel with an applied string rim, possibly ademijohn, was noted.

5.6.4 Two complete colourless pharmaceutical phials were recovered, along with a fragmentarybase. Whilst in use by the seventeenth century (see, for instance, Gooder 1984), thesesimple vessels usually appear in colourless metal from the mid-eighteenth century (NoelHume 1969, 74), and the cylindrical form suggests a date after c 1780.

5.6.5 A further 119 fragments were from bottles in colourless or almost colourless metal. Allwere from mould-blown vessels, and nothing suggests that any of them were earlier thanthe mid–late nineteenth century. Fragments of greenish-colourless egg or Hamilton bottlesare unlikely to pre-date c 1870, although they were patented in the early part of the century(Hurst Vose 2008, 370), and continued in production into the twentieth century. An almostcomplete cylindrical vessel, from a modern drain in Area B, is probably machine-blown,placing it, at the earliest, in the last years of the nineteenth century, and most probably inthe twentieth, as bottles were being produced in Manchester, using this fully automatedtechnique, by 1907 (Hurst Vose 2008, 369). A machine-blown, colourless, twentieth-century milk bottle, embossed with the name of the dairy (Reece’s), was also recoveredfrom Area B. Three press-moulded lids from Area A, including one found in a cellar, areall of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century date.

5.6.6 Fine table wares are restricted to a group of four wineglasses from a cellar on Nova Scotia(Section 3.2). All are in a colourless leaded metal, and are identifiable as ‘rummers’, a styleof glass introduced into England in the last quarter of the eighteenth century, which wasmost popular in the early nineteenth century, and remained popular until c 1830 (NoelHume 1969, 195). Two heavy bases in good-quality leaded glass are probably drinkingbeakers; one, clearly blown, has the pontil-mark polished away. An insufficient amountremains of either vessel (one from the floor of a cellar north of Irwell Place (Phase 6), theother in late backfill in Area B) to allow them to be dated, although they are almostcertainly of nineteenth-century or later date.

5.6.7 A group of 50 fragments of thin colourless glass from a cellar between Irwell Place and



Murray Place (Section 3.4.8) appears to have come from a lamp glass of some kind, andcan be dated to the later nineteenth century. Two fragments of mould-blown cobalt blueglass from the same cellar have been tentatively identified as from a glass fire grenade, amethod of fire-fighting in use from about 1870 into the early twentieth century(www.london-fire.gov.uk).

5.6.8 Window glass represented just under 10% (9.78%) of the total glass assemblage, arelatively small proportion, perhaps reflecting a lack of glazed lights, even in the modernbuildings on the site, or that glass was extensively scavenged for reuse. Most wererelatively small mid-pane fragments in slightly greenish, slightly bluish and colourlessmetals, and cannot be dated with precision, except to note that they are probably not earlierthan the late eighteenth or nineteenth century, as cast glass was not produced in Englanduntil 1773, when the British Plate Glass Company was opened in St Helen’s (Barker andHarris 1994, 112). Only six small fragments are likely to be earlier, being thin greenish,probably muff-blown glass of late seventeenth- or early eighteenth-century date, somefrom a deposit closely associated with the clay pipe kiln dump (Section 5.4.20), and somefrom land reclamation material west of the second sea wall (7638; Section 4.4.5).

5.7 THE ANIMAL BONE

5.7.1 In total, c 300 fragments of animal bone were recovered from backfill and levelling layers.The assemblage was, however, too small and fragmentary to draw any meaningfulconclusions, particularly given the context of its disposal.

5.8 DISCUSSION

5.8.1 By far the largest proportion of the finds recovered by the excavation derived fromredeposited layers, either backfill or demolition debris levelled for new construction. Interms of their utility in constructing the chronology of land reclamation, and dockconstruction, they have provided useful insights, confirming and enhancing what wasknown from historical documentation.

5.8.2 Certain of the assemblages, such as the pottery and clay pipes, are intrinsically interesting,and are of national, indeed international, importance, in that they reveal features of thetransatlantic trade, as well as of taste and fashion. Clay pipes were fragile and in regularuse and, therefore, regularly replaced, so that new manufacture was constant. This makesthis type of artefact a particularly useful chronological marker, and the rapidly changingdesigns on the bowls of these pipes provide an index of social and political trends. Thedating evidence from the pipes has shown that land reclamation west of the second seawall (7638) was occurring in c 1780–90, while some of the designs, such as depictions ofthe liver bird, may suggest increasing local pride, confidence and identity. The analysis ofthe pottery reinforces this chronology, with the principal period of deposition occurring inthe late eighteenth century. The development of Liverpool’s hinterland is also highlightedby this assemblage, with a large proportion of the material either entering Liverpool alongthe recently constructed canal network, or being manufactured in the town itself, now thatthe raw material could be readily imported through the docks.

5.8.3 There were indications that at least some of the pottery was manufacturing waste, and thedumps from clay pipe kilns were certainly waste. Assemblages recovered from reclamation



material do not allow patterns of use to be deduced, but manufacturing waste can provideprecise dating by comparison with a domestic midden, where deposition occurs over alengthy period and can involve artefacts manufactured long before their disposal.

5.8.4 It might have been expected that trading activity would be reflected in the presence on thesite of obvious imports, especially durable items like pottery, since Liverpool was, by thelate eighteenth century, one of the country’s main seaports (Belchem 2006). With theexception of sugar, transported as molasses in barrels, and then refined in Liverpool usinglocally made sugar wares (Sections 5.2.24-5), this is not the case.

5.8.5 On the east coast of the country, the situation was very different, as European potteryimports are a notable element of assemblages from the major ports (see, for instance,Cotter 2000). This is not, however, the case in Liverpool, where imported ceramics arefew, from both elsewhere in Britain and further afield, and tend to be earlier than the mainperiod of Liverpool trade. This can be seen at Mann Island in the presence of fragments ofNorth Devon gravel-tempered ware (Section 5.2.7) and possible Spanish containers(Section 5.2.4). Bideford, a centre of production for the former, traded clay to Liverpool insmall amounts in the first half of the eighteenth century (Weatherill 1971) and it is quitelikely that limited numbers of gravel-tempered ware vessels reached the port, not in trade,but as personal possessions; small numbers of vessels in this ware have also been noted inassemblages around the Irish Sea and on the Isle of Man (Cubbon et al 2002), as well asfrom further afield. Similarly, it is possible that individual items of Bristol tin-glazed waresreached Liverpool by sea, but, as these are difficult to distinguish from locally madeLiverpool wares (Section 5.2.5), it is reasonable to assume that most of the tin-glazedwares from the site were local products. There is no doubt that late seventeenth- and earlyeighteenth-century Staffordshire wares were reaching Liverpool in reasonable amounts(Section 5.2.6), and they are most obviously represented on the site by slip-decorated cupsand press-moulded plates. The main period of production of these wares was, however,before the main flowering of pottery production in Liverpool (Poole 1995), and they wouldhave been brought to the town along with contemporary vessels from Buckley (Barker1993), and from the South Lancashire coalfields, for instance, from Prescot (mCnEIL1989; Davey 1991).

5.8.6 The eighteenth-century Chinese porcelain teawares (Section 5.2.13) are the one obviousimport, but it is highly unlikely that these were entering Liverpool via a maritime route. Itis more likely that these were being moved northwards from London, in the course of thetea-trade, arriving overland, and latterly by canal (Richards 1999).

5.8.7 Most of the later eighteenth- and nineteenth-century pottery from the site appears to berelatively locally made, or to be Staffordshire wares brought to Liverpool for finishing,before being exported to America and the Caribbean (Hyland 2005). Whilst some of theassemblage undoubtedly derived from Liverpool households, and thus reflects what wasavailable in the town and in use at that time, the presence of white salt-glazed stonewareseconds, and the large amounts of creamware flatwares, might well suggest the disposal ofbroken consignments of pottery made in Liverpool and intended for the Atlantic trade.Even after the abolition of slavery in 1807, Liverpool’s domination of the Atlantic trade(Belchem 2006) meant that enormous amounts of pottery were shipped westwards throughthe port, both from local producers (for instance, from Buckley, and later the Herculaneumpottery in Liverpool itself; Section 5.2.16) and the great Staffordshire producers, but, ratherthan bringing finished goods back to Liverpool, the return trade centred on sugar and



tobacco, neither of which are easily identifiable within the archaeological record.

5.8.8 In the nineteenth century, when Liverpool became the pivotal point in the mass movementof migrants bound for America (www.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&site=1150), the majorityof those passing through the port were poor and of low status, and had already beentravelling for some time (Belchem 2006); they were thus unlikely to have broughtsignificant amounts of disposable possessions with them. Thus the identification ofceramics and other finds ‘lost in transit’ would be very unlikely and entirely serendipitous.



6. DISCUSSION

6.1 INTRODUCTION

6.1.1 The value of the archaeological results obtained from a site such as this is twofold: some ofthe information is wholly different from anything available historically and, therefore,provides new insights into the past, while other elements are complementary and mayserve either to confirm or enhance existing historical data. This is particularly significantwhere the excavations have served to identify the presence of major structures such asslips, piers and sea walls, which were not clearly illustrated on any of the historicalmapping. This reinforces our understanding of the speed at which land reclamation and theconstruction and implementation of maritime engineering innovations were taking placealong the waterfront. The archaeological evidence supports the fact that work was soextensive that frequently elements of the waterfront were constructed and then maderedundant in the relatively short intervals between the mapping. A further significantelement of the excavations at Mann Island was that it served to highlight that when astructure became redundant within the dock network, it was not demolished or convertedor reused, but instead, the massive walls and jetties were simply backfilled, and new wallswere constructed in new locations. Not only does this throw into sharp relief the wealth ofraw material and man-power that was available at the time, but it also provides anindication that elsewhere on the waterfront major historical structures may not have beendemolished, but survive buried beneath later additions (Ritchie-Noakes 1984).

6.1.2 The excavations at Mann Island were situated entirely within an area of reclaimed groundand have exposed sea and dock walls, and the foundations of warehouses. The use of seawalls and wet docks was still at an early stage of technological innovation in Britain in themiddle decades of the eighteenth century (Jackson 1983). At Mann Island, thesedevelopments included the construction, in 1739, of the Dry Dock and its associated seawall, which was the first piece of major dock engineering since the Old Dock opened in1715 (Hyde 1971, 14). Also, there is evidence for an attempt to marry the requirements forboth local river traffic and a burgeoning international trade; the presence of the Dry Dock,the berths provided at Bird’s Slip, and the form and function of Manchester Dock are alltestament to this.

6.1.3 Aside from the significance of the docks as major feats of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century engineering, the evolution of housing, warehouses, workshops and sewers, providean important insight into an element of society which has left behind little or no first-handwritten documentation. The people who lived in the cramped confines of Mann Island andNova Scotia would have been a poor and, to a certain extent, transitory group. Despite theexistence of valuable historical sources, such as the many editions of Gore’s Directory forLiverpool, it is not possible to understand fully the nature of the buildings that were listedin the directory without also examining the archaeological remains.

6.1.4 The programme of archaeological work involved the recovery of a wide variety of finds,including pottery and clay pipe assemblages of certainly national, and, indeed,international significance, as well as evidence for the methods by which reclamation wasachieved, and for developments in dock design and construction techniques. Artefactsrecovered at the waterfront mostly fell into three principal categories: objects made inLiverpool which were designed for consumption by the local market; objects manufactured



in Liverpool which were designed for the export market, and were not available for sale inthe city; and finally, imported objects from elsewhere in Britain or abroad, which wereassimilated into the material culture of those living and working on the waterfront.

6.2 RECLAMATION AND SEA WALLS

6.2.1 The evidence from historical mapping suggests that land was reclaimed at Mann Island intwo major phases, although this provides only a partial picture of the process ofreclamation. Once development of this area began in the late 1730s, with the constructionof the Dry Dock, a number of changes appear to have taken place in rapid succession, thatwere unmatched by the pace of map production. The known mapping of the docks in thispart of Liverpool begins with Chadwick’s production of 1725 (Fig 4), and continues withJohn Eyes’ map (1765; Fig 5), followed by Perry’s (1769; Fig 6), Charles Eyes’ (1785; Fig7), and Horwood’s (1803; Fig 8). After this date, the rate of production increases, although,frequently the emphasis is placed upon the development of the town as a whole rather thanjust the waterfront. John Eyes’ map of 1765 provides the most useful evidence concerningthe positioning of the sea walls, but the most useful map showing the culmination of majordock developments at Mann Island is that by Gage in 1836 (Fig 9; compiled upon thecompletion of the alterations to the Dry Dock, which subsequently became known asCanning Dock), while the Ordnance Survey series, from 1850 (Fig 10), provides usefuldetails of the buildings associated with the docks, and changes to them. By this date,however, many of the buildings were given over to businesses and warehousing rather thanthe earlier residential occupation which started in the 1750s.

6.2.2 The archaeological evidence from the excavations at Mann Island suggests three phases ofreclamation, and implies a fourth, marked in turn by sea walls 5707, 7638, and 7636. Afurther sea wall, beyond the limit of the excavation, but within the LCL4 basin of theLiverpool Canal Link (OA North 2011b), enabled the construction of the Manchester Basin(Fig 25).

6.2.3 First Reclamation: the arrangement of the first phase of reclamation, with a north/southwall, 5707 (Fig 13), curving round to the east, is not marked on historical mapping, as thisstructure was constructed between 1740 and 1743 and therefore fell between the mappingsequences undertaken by Chadwick in 1725 and John Eyes in 1765 (Section 3.2.6). It wasfollowed by the construction of the Dry Dock, the principal aim being to provide additionalquay space (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 27). It lay in the south-east corner of the excavation,25.7m west of the Canning Dock wall. The sections of the wall revealed by the excavationwere constructed of squared blocks of yellow sandstone, in regular coursing, withoutmortar, but with a smooth, almost ashlar, finish on the waterside. A distinct batter on therear was achieved by stepping the blocks back from the vertical line with each course. Thecurve at its northern end suggests it continued in an easterly direction, parallel with thenorth wall of the Dry Dock, 5270 (Fig 12). Given the lack of any evidence for a westernwall of the Dry Dock to the west of the modern-day Canning Dock, it is likely that thewestern wall of Canning Dock, created in the 1830s, coincided with the line of the earlierDry Dock (Section 3.2.2).

6.2.4 Second Reclamation: the second phase of reclamation, where wall 7638 was built at anangle westwards from its junction with earlier wall 5707, before continuing on anorth/south alignment beyond the limit of the excavation, is marked as such on maps by



John Eyes (1765; Fig 5), Perry (1769; Fig 6), and Charles Eyes (1785; Fig 7). It did notentirely replace the first wall, but was joined to it by a short section that was angled tocross the gap (Fig 13). This wall was not found to butt or be keyed into the existingsection, and a series of tipped layers was recorded between the two, indicating the presenceof a earthen ramp or slip, which was possibly also associated with a line of timberstructures. The two lines of staggered, parallel walls (5707 and 7638) are shown on Eyes’1765 map, with a gap between them depicted and this would appear to correspond to aslipway to afford access to the foreshore; it also tallies closely with the physical evidence.Excavation at the northern end of the site indicated that wall 7638 continued beyond theboundary of the excavation, dividing into two, with one element turning eastward and theother westward (Fig 18). Both turned beneath the present Mann Island Road and it is notclear where these walls terminated, although the wall that continued eastward may haveformed the limit of an area known as Sea Bank (Ritchie-Noakes 1984). This is, indeed,intimated by the arrows shown on John Eyes’ map of 1765, which may represent somekind of slope or banking to the north of the Graving Dock. The reclaimed land, subsequentto the second reclamation, comprised the Dry Dock, a Graving Dock, orientated north-west/south-east, extending from the north-western corner of the dock, and a narrow strip ofnew land between the Dry and Graving Docks and the sea, appropriately called NovaScotia, upon which warehouses and housing had been established by the time of Eyes’ mapof 1765 (Section 3.2.1). The Graving Dock was converted in the early 1770s, to form apassage from the Dry Dock through to George’s Dock, thus linking it with the rest of theestablished network (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 27).

6.2.5 Third Reclamation: the third phase of reclamation is suggested by the construction of wall7636 (Fig 13), to the west of wall 7638, which in part served as a slip, providing access tothe river, and particularly to the graving bank located to the west of the earlier sea wall, butseemingly also defining an area of reclamation. A notable feature of wall 7636, whichformed a slip, was that it turned to the west at its northern end (Fig 18), implying that therewas an area of reclaimed ground to the north, beyond the limit of the Mann Islandexcavations, from which access to the slip itself was possible. Such an arrangement ought,in theory, to be clearly identifiable on any map, and its absence suggests that it was adevelopment which occurred sometime in the 1770s, between the production of Perry’smap (1769; Fig 6) and that by Charles Eyes (1785; Fig 7). It is possible that theconstruction of this wall was halted, never to be completed, because of the implementationof the construction of the Town Dock, or George’s Dock as it later became known. Eyes’map of 1765 indicates the outline for the proposed dock and arrows adjacent to the modernlocation of George’s Dock Passage suggest that the land there was already ramped as partof the reclamation process (Fig 5). With the approval of the Act enabling the constructionof George’s Dock (MDHB/MP/25,137), additional land was required to provide adequatequay space, which meant that the sea wall, presumably still under construction at thatstage, was abandoned, and new sea walls were built further to the west. Pier Head wassubsequently completed in 1771 and was designed specifically to form an outer enclosurearound George’s Dock (LCC 2005, 51). The archaeological evidence indicates that wall7636 marked an intermediary episode of reclamation between the second and a laterepisode, and, given that the latter is depicted on the Eyes’ map of 1785 (OA North 2011b),wall 7636 must reflect either a transient or incomplete section of sea wall. It is therefore areasonable supposition that its replacement was related to the changes to the landscapebrought about by the construction of George’s Dock (also completed in 1771). As part of



this construction programme, the Graving Dock was converted in the early 1770s, to forma passage from the Dry Dock through to George’s Dock, thus linking it with the rest of theestablished network (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 27), and this turned Nova Scotia into an islandconnected only by bridges. The new sea wall was also contemporary with the initial workto construct the Manchester Basin, from the late 1770s (Moss and Stammers nd, 17), and itwas perhaps acting as a point of access even after the graving bank had ceased to be in use.

6.2.6 The form of the stonework of wall 7636 appeared to be virtually identical to that of thesecond sea wall (7638), perhaps a direct consequence of the seemingly short period of timebetween the construction of each. Both walls, and indeed wall 5707 as well, were built ofthe same type of stone, a relatively soft sandstone (op cit, 37), that was a vivid chromeyellow when freshly broken, but weathered to a yellow-brown colour. The waterside faceof each of the walls was evenly coursed, without mortar, and the stone was dressed inshallow angular flutings, while the rears of the walls were less regularly coursed andstepped from a wide base to a narrower coping.

6.2.7 Fourth Reclamation: the new works to the west of George’s Dock, forming Pier Head,became the limit of the fourth phase of reclamation, which lay behind a sea wall c 120mwest of the edge of the Mann Island excavation, at the limit of what was known as the OldQuay (OA North 2011b). This wall, once established, allowed the construction ofManchester Basin, and was probably adapted several times during its existence, to takeaccount of alterations to Manchester Dock in the period up to c 1815 (Section 4.6.1).

6.3 DOCK WALLS

6.3.1 The earliest dock wall revealed by the excavations was that of the Dry Dock, 5270, openedin 1740 (Section 3.2.9), a short section of which was extant at the southern limit of Area B(Fig 12). The wall was constructed from yellow sandstone, in regular courses, withoutmortar, as were all of the early structures (Section 6.2), apart from the Old Dock, whichwas constructed of red brick with a mortar bond (OA North 2010b); it is apparent, that thisbond, combined with the weight of the sandstone, contributed to the structures stabilitywithout the need for mortar. At its east end, the start of a return to the south wasuncovered, which would ultimately have turned into the east wall of the dock. Its projectedalignment would place it east of the east wall of the present Canning Dock, which wasmodified from the Dry Dock, after work carried out by Jesse Hartley from 1826, and wasopened in 1829 (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 41). Further large sections of sandstone, associatedwith the swing bridge at the southern entrance to George’s Dock Passage, were alsoidentified, but these were large and built of the pink sandstone associated with thealteration to create Canning Dock, and the subsequent addition of a bridge to allow rollingstock from the dockside railway across to the Mann Island and Nova Scotia warehousesand transit sheds (MDHB/G50/WUP).

6.3.2 A section of walling, 7248, was identified in Area C (Fig 18), which was clearly the westwall of George’s Dock Passage, constructed in the 1770s to provide access from the DryDock to George’s Dock, which itself was opened in 1771 (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 27). Thewall was constructed of yellow sandstone, with a later, pink sandstone repair to some of theupper courses. A small section of the east wall of the passage was revealed in the south-west corner of Area B, where it had been modified and rebuilt in pink sandstone toaccommodate a footbridge (Fig 12). Its position indicated that it post-dated the



construction of Canning Dock, which replaced the Dry Dock. George’s Dock was closed in1900, and partly backfilled (op cit, 28), the ‘Three Graces’, the Port of Liverpool Building,the Cunard Building, and the Royal Liver Building, constructed over the period 1903–16,now occupying the site of the dock (Sharples 2004, 67). More than half of George’s DockPassage was backfilled at the same time, leaving a short section extant, that still opens offthe northern end of Canning Dock.

6.3.3 The most recent dock walls exposed by the excavation formed the east and north quays ofManchester Dock (Fig 3). The dock was exposed almost in its entirety during constructionwork at Mann Island, with the western limits, including gates, being excavated by theNational Museums Liverpool on the site of the new Museum of Liverpool (MoLforthcoming) and additional sections being excavated in bays LCL3 and LCL4 of the newLiverpool Canal Link (OA North 2011b; Fig 25). The precise date of the construction ofManchester Dock is not known; however, it first appears as the Manchester Bay (or Basin)on the Charles Eyes’ map of 1785, and a sister structure, in the form of the Chester Basin,was constructed to the north of it in 1795 (Anon 1795). The final major development tookplace in c 1815, when the late eighteenth-century Manchester Basin was modified bynarrowing its entrance, to accommodate the installation of twin-leaf lock gates, that areshown on historical mapping (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 35). The walls were constructed witha waterside face of the harder pink sandstone, in ashlar finish, and an irregular bond,behind which were both pink and yellow sandstone. Access ladders were situated in baysrecessed into the walls on both the northern and eastern sides, and the reverse side wasstepped out towards its base, providing a more substantial foundation, situated upon aseries of vertical timber piles (Plate 18). The Manchester Dock was in use for 145 years,and during this time was subject to at least two major phases of alteration, thus prolongingits life. Following its conversion to a gated dock, further alterations related to the advent ofthe railway on Merseyside, as its eastern retaining wall was adapted to accept three timberpiers, sheltered by overhanging transit sheds (Section 4.7.3). These projected from theeastern side of the dock on an east/west orientation and were held in place by massivestone counterweights located on the eastern face of the wall.

6.3.4 In contrast to the massive enterprises of sea wall and dock construction by the CommonCouncil, a more modest, probably private, commercial development was revealed by theexcavation, in the form of Bird’s Slip (Section 3.2.12). While no supporting documentaryevidence has been identified concerning it, aside from the fact that its presence is recordedon the Perry map of 1769 (Fig 6), and by several entries in Gore’s Directory (Gore 1766),the weight of other evidence points to the involvement of Joseph Bird in its construction,given its name, the naming of a street north of Dry Dock (Section 3.2.10), the involvementof Joseph Bird in the committee formed to oversee the construction of Dry Dock, the factthat he was Bailiff in 1736 and Mayor in 1748, that he was the first Superintendent of theDry Dock, and was one of the most successful slave traders of the period (Ritchie-Noakes1984). These all suggest his involvement in the commercial development of this area.Whether the structure was commissioned by Bird, or simply named after him for hisextensive involvement in trade and mercantile endeavour in that area, is unclear. GeorgeMann, one of the first registered inhabitants of the area which became known as MannIsland or Mann’s Island (MDHB/MP/25, 56), also seems to have been afforded the samehonour.



6.4 WAREHOUSING ACROSS NOVA SCOTIA AND MANN ISLAND

6.4.1 A considerable variety of buildings was revealed by the excavation. In Areas A and C,domestic dwellings and trade premises, including workshops, pubs, boathouses,warehouses and coal and timber yards formed the area known as Nova Scotia (Figs 21 and22; Section 4.6.3), while in Area B, the remains of part of the Dock Police Office,Weighing Machine and Foreman Sweeper’s Office were excavated (Fig 12), along with asubstantial proportion of the below-ground workings associated with the Pumping andVentilation Station for the Mersey Railway tunnel, overlying earlier warehousing (Sections4.7 and 4.8).

6.4.2 While the function of some of the buildings on Nova Scotia can be tracked on the historicalmapping, and using the corresponding entries in the various editions of Gore’s Directory,this does not identify them all, and does not reveal either the history of their constructionor its character. Papers relating to the later activities on Mann Island exist as part of theMersey Docks and Harbour Board archive (MDHB/2211/M38) and this provides asporadic but frequently indepth record of occupants of each dwelling, including those whoactually lived in warehouses and cellars, as well as the modifications, repairs andmodernisation that were carried out within these premises, and the rents the occupantspaid. The excavations were able to show phases of construction, and changes in the choiceof building materials, principally the move from sandstone to hand-made red brick, andlatterly that from red brick to iron, steel and concrete.

6.4.3 In Area C, at the northern end of Nova Scotia, between Mann Island and Irwell Place, theexcavated remains consisted of the cellars of a group of warehouses, public houses, andoffices, dating from the late eighteenth century (Plate 9: Fig 21; Section 4.6.3). Area A,south of Irwell Place, contained the remains of cellars for buildings used for similarpurposes (Fig 22; Section 4.6.11), while further south, beyond Murray Place (Fig 13), therewas a group of cellars associated with a line of buildings that were probably constructed atthe very end of the eighteenth century, and which did not persist through to the modernperiod (Section 4.7.4). Some, at least, of these cellars appeared to have been used asdomestic accommodation; however, the buildings above them were demolished andreplaced in the 1830s (Gage 1836 (Fig 9); OS 1850 (Fig 10)). The whole area of NovaScotia was redeveloped in the 1920s and 1930s, when all of the buildings weredemolished, and a new transit shed, serving Canning and Manchester Docks, was erected,along with a garage for an automotive business at the north end of the site (Fig 23; Section4.9).

6.4.4 The earliest remains of buildings in Nova Scotia were executed in yellow sandstone, andwere few and dispersed, having been largely destroyed by later foundations and by themid-late nineteenth-century introduction of subterranean culverts and drainage. Theirpositions appeared to correspond to what is represented on eighteenth-century historicalmapping, and Horwood’s map of 1803 (Fig 8). The majority of the remains wereconstructed from red, hand-made brick, and, in one case, the gable end of a building was ina different position from that shown on the earlier mapping. Taken together, this suggeststhat the majority of the remains revealed by the excavations were of buildings constructedin the early nineteenth century, with the deposits beneath them dating from the 1740sonwards.

6.4.5 On the east side of George’s Dock Passage, in Area B, a few short lengths of walling wererevealed (Fig 12), which may have formed part of the cellars for the warehouses that



occupied this site before it was redeveloped in the 1830s (Section 4.6.15). The survivinglengths were too short to be certain of the layout of the spaces they once enclosed, and noflooring associated with them was identified, as the majority of the surfaces in this area hadbeen heavily disturbed.

6.4.6 The historical mapping (Fig 8), and some photographic evidence, shows the uses to whichthese buildings were put. There were, however, few artefacts, apart from some wine bottlesand wine glasses recovered from the cellars, that could potentially elucidate their function.Some cellars on the western side of the Dock Passage had been stacked with bricks,suggesting a planned modification rather than gradual redundancy and disuse. This isfurther supported by the overall evidence from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Boardrecord (MDHB/2211), which shows a meticulous level of control being exercised over theproperties situated within this valuable piece of waterfront real estate. The records do notsuggest that the buildings in this area were well maintained and numerous entries makemention of the fact that this was a particularly antiquated and squalid area of the waterfront(eg Gore 1766; presumably in comparison to the more modern warehouses and dockaccommodation to the north of Princes Dock); however, every application to sub-divide orsub-let warehouse space seems to have been carefully recorded, along with all themaintenance work, or lack thereof, which took place in the area. It is possible, therefore,that a relatively high standard of tidiness was effected at the end of the lifetime of thecellars. The exceptions were those south of Murray Place, which were probably redundantby the early nineteenth century, when the site was redeveloped (Section 4.7.4). Theseappear to have been roughly backfilled, while a certain amount of domestic refuseremained on the floor.

6.5 OTHER BUILDINGS

6.5.1 The area east of George’s Dock Passage was cleared in the 1830s and the site was used forthe Dock Police and Harbour Surveyor’s Offices. An engraving of the elevation depicts animposing building, of some architectural pretension (MDHB/JH/117). Original planslodged at the Maritime Archive suggest that this structure was originally designed by JesseHartley, and the plans were then copied and reissued by George Lyster (ibid). The structureitself comprised a large sandstone facade, two storeys high, and with a substantial cellarcomplex. All the elevations have five large, equally spaced bays, with the principal south-facing elevation being distinguished by a wrought-iron balustrade around the central bayon the first floor, and a set of stone steps marking the principal entrance. The excavationsrevealed a small section of the south side of the basement of this building, that roughlycoincided with the stepped entrance; it was constructed in pink sandstone, in a fine finish.It was associated with another structure, forming an elongated octagon (Fig 12), which wasknown as the Foreman Sweeper’s Office, although the exact function of this building isunclear, it being poorly documented (Section 4.7.1). It is known that the office was alsoused as a base by the Dock Police, and was associated with the maintenance of theWeighing Machine. No additional evidence was recovered from the excavation to explainits use or history, although it survived as a well-constructed basement with hexagonal pinksandstone columns, suggesting that it had been built to the same exacting standards and ata similar time as the Dock Police and Harbour Surveyor’s offices.

6.5.2 The tunnel under the Mersey for the Mersey Railway was constructed in 1881-6 (Section4.8.1). A steam-powered pumping and ventilation station was established at each end of the



tunnel to keep it clear of water and provide a supply of fresh air, by creating a convectioncurrent to draw out the smog and smoke produced by the steam trains as they hauledcarriages up and down the 1:27 gradient beneath the river. The Liverpool pumping andventilation station was within Area B, and its intrusive subterranean workings effectivelyobliterated the earlier remains relating to Bird Street, Bird Alley and the dwellings aroundthe north quay of the Dry Dock (Fig 12). Sporadic sections of roughly hewn yellowsandstone wall were identified to the west of the ventilation station; however, these weretoo fragmentary to be associated with any particular structure from before 1880. Theremains of the Pumping and Ventilation station consisted of the pits to accommodate the‘Guibal’ fans, designed to create a sufficient vacuum to draw fresh air into the tunnel(Maund 2002, 6–8 and 15; Jones 2006, 132). The excavation also revealed parts of otherstructures that were clearly associated with the Pumping and Ventilation Station, whichwere marked on the Ordnance Survey Town Plan of 1891; these included the perimeter ofthe brick sheds which protected these workings. Later development of the site, followingthe replacement of the station in the 1930s, had disturbed some of the remains, however,and it was not possible to identify the purpose of these structures from the evidenceavailable (Section 4.9.7).

6.5.3 Following the clearance of the buildings occupying Nova Scotia in the early 1920s, twotransit sheds were constructed on the site, to serve Canning and Manchester Docks, ofwhich that for Canning Dock survived until the outset of the development and was subjectto a building survey (Section 4.9.7; OA North 2007; Fig 23). These structures effectivelyencompassed the whole area previously known as Nova Scotia, although Irwell Streetsurvived as the access road to the west. The excavation in Area A revealed the concretefootings of columns supporting the Canning Dock transit shed roof. North of the transitshed was the site of the Voss Garage in Area C, which was also surveyed before demolition(OA North 2007; Section 4.9.7; Plate 22). The excavation uncovered the sites of below-ground storage tanks associated with this building, and also some of its concrete footings.

6.5.4 Some structural remains, probably associated with the National Sea Training School, themost recent building on the site at the time of the excavations, were revealed in Area B(Section 4.10.2). The substantial concrete footings cut through and overlay a number ofearly nineteenth-century features.

6.6 RESEARCH AIMS

6.6.1 Four research aims were outlined in the assessment report (OA North 2010a; Section 2.3);each of these, and their accompanying objectives, has been addressed in this programme ofanalysis. The first aim was directed at the changing environment of the Mersey, with theintention of detecting changes in vegetation and shoreline during the course of landreclamation and dock development. Achievement of this aim is principally dependent onthe availability of palaeoenvironmental samples of the requisite quality from appropriatelocations. The stratigraphic analysis has shown that there were no deposits of the original,pre-reclamation foreshore, revealed by the excavation which had the capacity to sustainthis type of investigation. However, some understanding of how the foreshore has changedhas been established from the historical studies and from the archaeological examination ofthe reclaimed land, which have provided some insight into the modifications and use of theforeshore.



6.6.2 The second aim was to chart the post-medieval development of the layout and character ofthe site. The phased account of the results from the excavations (Section 4), incorporatingkey data from the analysis of the finds, together with research on historical documents, hasbeen able to demonstrate the steady reclamation of land from the river during the mid-eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and the establishment of facilities for shipping,including the construction of Dry Dock and Manchester Dock, and access from within thedock system to George’s Dock. Sequences of different buildings were revealed on NovaScotia, between Canning Dock and Manchester Dock, and north-east of Canning Dock.

6.6.3 Another aim was focused on the evidence for the development of trade and industry inpost-medieval Liverpool, and its associated infrastructure. Two main categories ofevidence are relevant here: the structural evidence of the various buildings excavated atNova Scotia and north of Canning Dock; and the results from the analysis of the pottery(Section 5.2), glass (Section 5.6), and clay pipes (Section 5.4).

6.6.4 Two principal areas of buildings were revealed by the excavations. One, north-east ofCanning Dock, was shown to preserve the vestigial remains of eighteenth-centurywarehousing (Section 4.4.5), which was superseded by the Dock Police Office in the 1830s(Section 4.7.1). The southern end of this site was occupied by the pits for the fans of thelate nineteenth-century Pumping and Ventilation Station for the Mersey Railway tunnel(Section 4.8.1), and the concrete footings of twentieth-century structures (Section 4.9.6).The other area lay west of Canning Dock, and was known from the second half of theeighteenth century as Nova Scotia. Within this area, there were three separate blocks ofbuildings, divided by east/west streets. The remains of the northern block possibly includedsome eighteenth-century sandstone footings, and even a section of wall (Sections 4.4.6),but otherwise consisted of early nineteenth-century brick-built cellars (Section 4.6.3),backfilled in the early twentieth century, and overlain by brick and concrete structuresassociated with an automotive business (Section 4.9.9). The cellars all belonged to publichouses, warehouses, and offices identified on mid-nineteenth-century mapping andhistorical photographs. The middle block preserved some late eighteenth-century sandstonefootings for warehouses (Sections 4.6.10), but principally consisted of cellars constructedin brick, for buildings which could also be identified from historical mapping andphotographs, as public houses, warehouses and offices (Section 4.6.8). The site was clearedin the early twentieth century, and a transit shed constructed, which was still standing at thestart of the archaeological investigations (Section 4.9.7). The third, southern, blockappeared to date from the very end of the eighteenth century, and consisted of brick-builtcellars, some of which had probably served as domestic accommodation (Section 4.4.6).Historical mapping showed that these were replaced by warehouses in the early nineteenthcentury (Section 4.6.4). No archaeological remains of these were found, but some of theconcrete foundations for the early twentieth-century transit sheds were recorded (Section4.9.6).

6.6.5 It is of interest that the finds from Mann Island, and especially the pottery, closely reflectthose seen on other excavations in the immediate area, including the Liverpool Canal Linksites. All seem to include a mix of domestic waste, possibly midden dumps cleared andbrought to the sites as backfill, rather than piecemeal deposition by individual households.It is undoubtedly mixed with small dumps of material representing production orprocessing waste, especially glass, pottery and clay tobacco pipe. The amounts ofcreamwares and other refined earthenwares dumped at any one time do not seem to reflect



the disposal of kiln waste per se, which would presumably have accumulated inconsiderable quantities, and probably would have been dumped at the production site.Rather, deposits of small numbers of plates or dishes might represent the disposal ofbreakages in consignments intended for cargo. The presence at both Mann Island and theLiverpool Canal Link of significant numbers of dark olive green bottles, all of similar sizesand manufacture, might suggest the same level of disposal. Finds in other materials are notwell represented at either site, although Mann Island has more metalwork, much of itstructural, presumably deriving from buildings.

6.6.6 The possibility that these assemblages might, in part, reflect the accumulation of materialintended for export is of considerable significance in considering Liverpool’s maritimepast. There is no doubt that Liverpool was exporting tin-glazed pottery and tiles toAmerica from the early eighteenth century (Hyland 2005, 5; Noel Hume 1969, 288). Tin-glazed wares are present, although no evidence for the production of either was seen in theMann Island assemblage. The industry is, however, well-attested (Hyland 2005, 5) and tin-glazed wasters and associated saggars were recovered from Chevasse Park (OA North2010b). Porcelain was also made in considerable quantities in the late eighteenth century,up to c 1800, when Liverpool producers lost market to the Staffordshire producers, and thecontinuing improvements in refined white earthenwares, which, produced on an industrialscale, were considerably cheaper (Hyland 2005, 7). Liverpool porcelain was present inboth assemblages, although the lack of biscuit-fired wasters in the Mann Island assemblagemight reflect a slightly later date for the build-up of dumped material. The close, almostsymbiotic, link between the great Staffordshire pottery producers, especially Wedgewood,and printers in Liverpool is well known from the mid-eighteenth century (Hyland 2005,11), and probably helped to foster Liverpool’s own earthenware pottery industry,seemingly leading directly to the establishment of the Herculaneum pottery in 1796 (op cit,22), products of which made up a significant part of the Mann Island assemblage. Many ofthe factory workers were recruited from Staffordshire (op cit, 29). Indeed, both Liverpooland Staffordshire products crossed the Atlantic in vast amounts during the late eighteenthand nineteenth centuries, all being known, on arrival in America, as Liverpool Wares, fromtheir mutual port of origin (op cit, 9).

6.6.7 Liverpool was of necessity reliant on imported white-firing clays, coming mainly from theWest Country (op cit, 20), for the production of porcelain and refined earthenwares. It is noaccident that the great pottery production site at Herculaneum was situated by the riversideand had its own waterfront, allowing imported clay to be unloaded directly onto thequayside for weathering (ibid). The kilns were fuelled with coal from the South Lancashirecoalfields, brought by canal from St Helens (Hyland 2005, 20). At the Herculaneumpottery, built on the site of a former copper-smelting business, a supplementary incomecame from selling on copper slags left on the site, either as road metalling, or as ship’sballast (op cit).

6.6.8 Although finewares and refined earthenwares are the most obvious pottery exports, red-bodied coarsewares, common in the Mann Island and the Liverpool Canal Linkassemblages, also passed through the port, coming from a number of local producers,including the Buckley kilns; these are found in significant quantities on many earlyAmerican sites (Noel Hume 1969, 132). Coarsewares from Rainford and Prescot probablyfollowed the same route, and, certainly in later years, the link between the Liverpoolfineware producers and the coarseware manufacturers of its industrial hinterland were so



close as to be indivisible, with factories in the two places owned by the same people, andprobably using the same canal systems to bring robust coarsewares to the city.

6.6.9 A significant export market is indicated by the recovery of sugar moulds from theexcavations. Raw sugar was imported from the West Indies and refined in Liverpool fromthe late seventeenth century (Hyde 1971, 27), and during the period 1785–1810, the tradeexpanded from 16,600 tons annually to 46,000 tons (op cit, 26). Refineries wereestablished close to the dockside, and the moulds were used for preparing the refined sugarfor onward trade, both inland and for export. The inland traffic was particularly focused onDuke’s Dock, opened in 1773 (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 32), which lies a short distance to thesouth; this is now closed and partly filled in (ibid).

6.6.10 The dumps of clay pipes found in both the Liverpool Canal Link excavations (OA North2011a; Fig 25), to the south of Mann Island, and that on the Mann Island site itself (5247;Fig 24), is strongly suggestive of a thriving local industry, and clay pipe workshops areknown along Strand Street, immediately adjacent to the docks (D Higgins pers comm). Theraw material, pipe clay, had to be imported, with sources in the south and south-west ofEngland, in Devon, the Isle of Wight and Poole (D Higgins pers comm). Evidence from theexcavations on the site of the Liverpool Canal Link showed that the clay pipe kilns werecoal-fired (OA North 2011a) and, by the late eighteenth century, canal networks for thetransport of this commodity were well established, with the Duke of Bridgewater’s canalfrom his colliery at Worsley, near Manchester, to Runcorn (opened in 1773; Ransom 1984,36–7), and the Sankey Brook Navigation from St Helens to the Mersey, which wascompleted in 1757 (op cit, 36).

6.6.11 The rise of consumerism is also clear from the detail recovered from the clay pipeassemblage (Section 5.4). While fragile, and regularly replaced, the pipes also changedrapidly in design and decoration. Users do not appear to have wished to replace like forlike, but rather to possess and display the latest fashion. There was also a developing rangein terms of quality, which will have served a similar social purpose.

6.6.12 The final research aim addressed the development of engineering techniques andoperational methodologies in the Liverpool dock system. The excavations encounteredthree different sea walls constructed over a period of less than 40 years, each reclaimingfurther land to the west, along with the remains of two separate docks, and a linkingpassageway. Although the land was reclaimed westwards and northwards, the chronologyof the extant structures does not follow this sequence exactly, because of rebuildingprogrammes.

6.6.13 No alteration in the construction techniques applied to the sea walls was discernible, witheach using similar squared yellow sandstone blocks, regularly coursed, without mortar, onthe waterside face, with a more irregular, rubble construction to landward. The walling ofGeorge’s Dock Passage and Dry Dock was found to be similar. Later constructions utilisedpink sandstone, apparent in the regularly coursed, waterside work of Manchester Dock,and the modifications associated with the footbridge across the southern end of George’sDock Passage (Section 4.4.7). The yellow sandstone did not fall out of use completely, as itwas found incorporated within the wall of Manchester Dock, but only as backing material.This preference is thought to have been dictated by the superior durability of the pinksandstone (Ritchie-Noakes 1984, 37). Canning Dock, dating from 1826–9 (Section 4.3.3),and still operational, is provided with walls in pink sandstone.



6.6.14 Most of the land reclamation and dock development at Pier Head was undertaken by theCorporation (Ritchie-Noakes 1984), and the excavations revealed some of the changeswhich had occurred in construction technique and materials over the course of c 70 years,between the commissioning of Dry Dock (1738), and the completion of Manchester Dockas a gated, wet dock (c1815). The most obvious change is that pink sandstone became thematerial of choice for the wall facing, in preference to the yellow sandstone, and that thedevelopment of an hydraulic mortar meant that walls were no longer wholly reliant onprecise coursing and shaping of stonework for their waterside strength and durability.While mortar was not apparent in the eighteenth-century sea walls, excavation of theconstruction face of the early nineteenth-century wall of Manchester Dock revealed asandy lime mortar. The use of mortar and grouting was to be developed to a peak ofeffectiveness under the tenure (1824–60) of the dock engineer, Jesse Hartley (Jarvis 1996,59).

6.6.15 The results of the excavations provide a degree of insight into the operation of the docks.The warehouses, public houses, packet offices, and transit sheds on the quaysides ofManchester and Canning Docks, were part of larger complexes shown on historicalmapping. The cellars of these buildings were revealed, with evidence, in some of them, fortheir use as domestic accommodation. There was no certain evidence for what goodspassed through the warehouses, however, or for the means or manner in which theirinternal space was organised, but the historical maps and photographs show that there wasa mixed and varied economy in this part of the docks. The buildings served the needs ofmerchants, sailors and travellers; goods were traded and ships were supplied; sailors werefed and accommodated; and those wishing to cross the Irish Sea, to Ireland or the Isle ofMan, could secure their passage.

6.7 CONCLUSIONS

6.7.1 The archaeological evaluation, excavations and watching briefs at Mann Island have beenable to provide firm evidence for the sequence of development of the docks in this part ofLiverpool. The standing remains have been securely linked to the historical mapping, andthe artefacts in the deposits around them have been dated, where possible, with therelationship between these and the structures being rationalised. The physical evidence fortechniques of construction and land reclamation has been recorded, for a crucial stage intheir development, during the second half of the eighteenth century and the beginning ofthe nineteenth. The analysis of the artefacts has both confirmed existing evidence, andrevealed new, tangible evidence for trade. It has also provided insight into the dramaticscale of production, and has been linked to the development of additional transportinfrastructure in the North West.



7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

7.1 PUBLISHED CARTOGRAPHIC SOURCES

Anon, 1795 LiverpoolChadwick, J, 1725 The Mapp of all the streets, lanes and alleys within the town of LiverpoolCole, G, 1807 Liverpool

Eyes, C, 1785 Plan of the town and township of Liverpool from an actual surveyEyes, J, 1765 Plan of Liverpool survey’d in June 1765Gage, MA, 1836 Town and Port of LiverpoolHorwood, R, 1803 Plan of the township of Liverpool shewing every house

Kaye, T, 1816 A Correct Plan of the Town of LiverpoolOrdnance Survey, 1850 1:1056 Town PlanOrdnance Survey, 1891 1:500 Town Plan

Ordnance Survey, 1908 1:2500 mapOrdnance Survey, 1927a 6” to 1 mile mapOrdnance Survey, 1927b 1:2500 mapOrdnance Survey, 1938 6" to 1 mile map

Ordnance Survey, 1955 1:2500 mapPerry, G, 1769 A New and Accurate Plan of the Town and Port of LeverpoolSwire, W, 1823 Liverpool and its Environs

7.2 PRIMARY SOURCES

English Heritage NMR Aerofilms Collection

Gore, 1766 Directory of Liverpool, Liverpool

Gore, 1767 Directory of Liverpool, LiverpoolGore, 1769 Directory of Liverpool, Liverpool






Gore, 1790 Directory of Liverpool, Liverpool



Gore, 1804 Directory of Liverpool, LiverpoolGore, 1816 Directory of Liverpool and environs, Liverpool

Gore, 1821 Directory of Liverpool and environs, LiverpoolGore, 1823 Directory of Liverpool and environs, Liverpool





Liverpool Echo, 2008 The Dockers’ Umbrella: City railway served Liverpool’s busy port, 23rd AprilAnon, 1794 The Universal British Directory of Trade, Commerce and Manufacture, London

Liverpool Record Office (LRO)

Hf 072 CHR, 1757 - 1857 Liverpool Chronicle and Marine Gazetteer (Microfiche)MDHB records presented as bound volumes from the original Mersey Docks and Harbour Boardarchive283 1/6, 283 1/7, 283 1/8 St Nicholas Burial Registers 1659-1812

7.3 SECONDARY SOURCES

Allan, JP, 1984 The Post-medieval Pottery, in JP Allan, Medieval and Post-medieval Finds fromExeter, 1971-1980, Exeter Archaeol Rep, 3, Exeter, 98–226

Amery, A, and Davey, PJ, 1979 Post-medieval Pottery from Brookhill, Buckley, Clwyd (Site 1), inS Sell (ed), Medieval and Later Pottery in Wales, 2, Bull Welsh Medieval Pottery Res Group,Swansea, 49–85

Anderson, P, 1996 An Illustrated History of Liverpool’s Railways, Clophill

Anon, 1848 The Parliamentary Gazetteer of England and Wales, III, 1845-6, LondonAnon, 1987 Alphabetical List of Pipemakers in Scotland, in P J Davey (ed), The Archaeology of the



Clay Tobacco Pipe, X, BAR Brit Ser, 178, Oxford, 337-50

Ascher, R, 1974 Tin Can Archaeology, Hist Archaeol, 8, 7–16Atkins, T, and Hyde, D, 2000 GWR Goods Services: an Introduction, Didcot

Atkinson, D, and Oswald, A, 1969 London Clay Tobacco Pipes, J Brit Archaeol Assoc, 3 ser, 32,171-227

Barker, D, 1984 Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Ceramics excavated at the Foley Pottery,Fenton, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire Archaeol Stud, 1, 63–86

Barker, D, 1993 Slipware, Princes RisboroughBarker, D, and Halfpenny, P, 1990 Unearthing Staffordshire, Stoke-upon-Trent

Barker, R, 2011 The Rise of an Early Modern Shipping Industry: Whitby’s Golden Fleet, 1600–1750, Woodbridge

Barker, TC, and Harris, JR, 1994 A Merseyside town in the Industrial Revolution: St Helens, 1750–1900, London

Belchem, J (ed), 2006 Liverpool 800, Culture, Character and History, LiverpoolBrazendale, D, 2007 Georgian Liverpool, a guide to the city in 1797, London

Brooks, C, 1983 Aspects of the Sugar-refining Industry from the 16th to the 19th century, Post-medieval Archaeol, 17, 1–14

Brunskill, RW, 1997 Brick Building in Britain, LondonChing, F, 2011 A visual dictionary of architecture, Chichester

Clarkson, T, 1830 Abolition of the African Slave Trade by the British Parliament, 2, Augusta USAConway, S, 2006 War, State and Society in Mid-Eighteenth Century Britain and Ireland, Oxford

Cory, WTW, 2005 Fans and Ventilation: a Practical Guide, LondonCotter, J, 2000 Post-Roman pottery from excavations in Colchester, 1971–85, Colchester ArchaeolRep, 7, ColchesterCoysh, AW, and Henrywood, RK, 1982 The Dictionary of Blue and White Printed Pottery, 1780–1880, 1, WoodbridgeCubbon, AM, Davey, PJ, and Gelling M (eds), Excavations on St Patrick’s Isle, Peel, Isle of Man:prehistoric, Viking, medieval and later, Centre Manx Stud Monog, 2, Liverpool, 58–82Dagnall, R, 1987 More Chester Pipes in Rainford, Soc Clay Pipe Res Newsletter, 16, 14-17

Dalton, R, and Hamer, SH, 1915 Provincial Token-Coinage of the eighteenth century, Bristol

Davey, PJ, 1991 Merseyside: The post-Roman Pottery, in P Tomlinson and M Warhurst (eds), TheArchaeology of Merseyside, J Merseyside Archaeol Soc, 7 (for 1986–7), 120–42Davey, PJ, and McNeil, R, 1985 Excavations in South Castle Street, Liverpool 1976 and 1977, JMerseyside Archaeol Soc, 4 (for 1980-1), 1–158Defoe, D, 1726 Tour Through the Whole Island of Great Britain, London

Draper, J, 1984 Post-medieval pottery, 1650-1800, Aylesbury



Duffy, MC, 2003 Electric Railways 1880-1990, Institution of Engineering and Technology, London

English Heritage, 1991 Management of Archaeological Projects, 2nd edn, LondonGodden, GA, 1974 English Porcelain: an illustrated guide, London

Gooder, E, 1984 The finds from the cellar of the Old Hall, Temple Balsall, Warwickshire, Post-medieval Archaeol, 18, 149–250

Green, C, 1999 John Dwight’s Fulham Pottery, Excavations 1971–79, English Heritage ArchaeolRep, 6, London

Hahn, HM, 1981 The colonial schooner 1763-1775, GreenwichHiggins, DA, 1987 The Interpretation and Regional Study of Clay Tobacco Pipes: A Case Study of theBroseley District, unpubl PhD thesis, Univ LiverpoolHiggins, DA, 2008 Merseyside Clay Tobacco Pipes, c 1600–1750, J Merseyside Archaeol Soc, 12,125–60Higgins, DA, 2010 Clay Tobacco Pipes from Excavations at the Liverpool Canal Link Site, 2007,unpubl repHiggins, DA, nd Database of Liverpool pipe makers, unpubl catalogue

Higgins, DA, and Davey, PJ, 2004 Appendix 4: Draft Guidelines for using the Clay Tobacco PipeRecord Sheets, in SD White, The Dynamics of Regionalisation and Trade: Yorkshire Clay TobaccoPipes c1600-1800, BAR Brit Ser, 374, Oxford, 487-90Hildyard, R, 2005 English Pottery 1620–1840, London

Holgate, R, 1989 Excavations at Prescot, December 1980–January 1981 (Sites A–E), J MerseysideArchaeol Soc, 5 (for 1982–3), 11–21

Honey, WB, 1969 English Pottery and Porcelain, 6th edn, LondonHughes, GB, 1968 Victorian Pottery and Porcelain, London

Hughes, GB, nd English and Scottish earthenware 1660–1860, LondonHurst, JG, Neal, DS, and van Beuningen, HJE, 1986 Rotterdam Papers VI: a contribution tomedieval archaeology: Pottery produced and traded in north-west Europe 1350–1650, RotterdamHurst Vose, R, 2008 Glass vessels, in F Brown and C Howard-Davis, Norton Priory: Monastery toMuseum, Excavations 1970–87, Lancaster Imprints, 16, Lancaster, 358–70Hyde, FE, 1971 Liverpool and the Mersey: The Development of a Port 1700-1970, Newton Abbot

Hyland, P, 2005 The Herculaneum Pottery. Liverpool’s Forgotten Glory, Liverpool

Innes, V, and Philpott, R, 1985 Unglazed Earthenwares, in Davey and McNeil 1985, 116–21

Institute for Archaeologists (IfA), 2008 Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Excavation,Reading

Jackson, G, 1983 The History and Archaeology of Ports, TadworthJackson, RG, and Price, RH, 1974 Bristol Clay Pipes, Bristol City Mus Res Monog, 1, Bristol

Jarvis, A, 1991a Liverpool Central Docks 1799–1905: an Illustrated History, LiverpoolJarvis, A, 1991b Prince’s Dock: a Magnificent Monument of Mural Art, Liverpool



Jarvis, A, 1996 The Liverpool Dock Engineers, Stroud

Jennings, S, 1981 Eighteen centuries of pottery from Norwich, East Anglian Archaeol, 13, NorwichJones, W, 2006 Dictionary of Industrial Archaeology, Stroud

Jung, S Paul Jr, 2003 Pollocks of Manchester: Three Generations of Clay Tobacco Pipemakers, DAHiggins (ed ), BAR Brit Ser, 352, Oxford

Kaye, T, 1816 The Stranger in Liverpool, 4th edn, LiverpoolKelly, JH, and Greaves, SJ, 1974 The excavation of a kiln base in Old Hall Street, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, City of Stoke-on-Trent Mus Archaeol Rep, 6, Stoke-on-TrentLewis, S, 1831 A Topographical Dictionary of England, London

Liverpool City Council (LCC), 2005 Maritime Mercantile City Liverpool: Nomination of Liverpool- Maritime Mercantile City for Inscription on the World Heritage List, Liverpool

McNeil, R, 1989 Excavation of an Eighteenth Century Pottery in Eccleston Street, Prescot (Site F),J Merseyside Archaeol Soc, 5 (for 1982–3), 49–94

Mankowitz, W, and Haggar, RG, 1968 The Concise Encyclopedia of English Pottery and Porcelain,2nd impr, London

Maund, TB, 2002 The Steam Era on the Mersey Railway 1886–1903, Railway Archive, 2, 2–19Marriner, S, 1982 The Economic and Social Development of Merseyside, London

Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive (MPTE), 1986 Mersey Railway Centenary 1886 – 1986,Liverpool

Moss, J, 1795 The Picture of Liverpool or A Strangers Guide to Liverpool, LiverpoolMoss, L, and Stammers, M, nd Liverpool’s South Docks: an Archaeological and Historical Survey,LiverpoolMuseums and Galleries Commission, 1992 Standards in the Care of Archaeological Collections,LondonMuseum of Liverpool, forthcoming Results of excavations on the site of Manchester Dock,Liverpool, unpubl repNeale, G, 2004 Collecting Blue and White Pottery, London

Nicholson, S, 1981 The Changing Face of Liverpool 12087 - 1727, Merseyside Archaeol Soc,Liverpool

Noel Hume, I, 1969 A Guide to the Artefacts of Colonial America, New York

OA North 2005 Canning Dock, Liverpool, Phase 2 Archaeological Evaluation Report, unpubl rep

OA North, 2006a Mann Island, Liverpool, Merseyside, Archaeological Evaluation Report, unpublrep

OA North, 2006b Mann Island, Liverpool, Archaeological Evaluation Project Design, unpubl docOA North, 2006c Mann Island, Archaeological Mitigation Recording Project Design, unpubl doc

OA North, 2007 Voss Garage and Transit Shed, Mann Island, Liverpool: Interim Fabric SurveyReport, unpubl rep



OA North, 2010a Mann Island, Liverpool, Merseyside: Archaeological Post-excavation AssessmentReport, unpubl repOA North 2010b The Old Dock and Chavasse Park and environs, Liverpool, Merseyside, Post-Excavation Assessment Report, unpubl repOA North, 2011a Mann Island Canal Link, Merseyside: Archaeological Excavation Report, unpublrepOA North, 2011b Pier Head Canal Link, Merseyside: Archaeological Excavation Report, unpublrepOA North, 2011c Central Docks Canal Link, Merseyside: Archaeological Excavation Report,unpubl repOA North, 2011d Area C Mann Island, Liverpool, Merseyside Watching Brief Report, unpubl rep

Oswald, A, Hildyard, RJC, and Hughes, RG, 1982 English Brown Stoneware, LondonPhilpott, RA, 1982-3 Sampling Excavations in Prescot (Sites 6-26), J Merseyside Archaeol Soc, 5,39-48Philpott, RA, 1985 Mottled ware, in Davey and McNeil 1985, 50–62

Philpott, RA, 1989 The Finds, in RW Cowell and GS Chitty, A timber-framed building at 21–23Eccleston Street, Prescot (Site 30), J Merseyside Archaeol Soc, 5 (for 1982–3), 27–34

Philpott, R, 1999 An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment of Land at Chavasse Park, Liverpool1997 (NGR SJ 343 901), unpubl rep, Liverpool Museum

Poole, JE, 1995 English Pottery, Fitzwilliam Mus Handbooks, CambridgeRansom, PJG, 1984 The Archaeology of the Transport Revolution, 1750–1850, London

Ray, A, 1973 English Delftware Tiles, LondonRichards, S, 1999 Eighteenth-century ceramics: products for a civilised society, Manchester

Rickard, J, 2006 Mocha and related dipped wares, 1770–1939, Hanover and London

Ritchie-Noakes, N, 1984 Liverpool’s Historic Waterfront: The World’s First Mercantile DockSystem, LondonRutter, JA, and Davey, PJ, 1980 Clay Pipes from Chester, in P, Davey (ed), The Archaeology of theClay Tobacco Pipe, III, BAR Brit Ser, 78, Oxford, 41-272Ryan, P, 1996 Brick in Essex from the Roman Conquest to the Reformation, Colchester

Savage, G, 1952 18th-century English Porcelain, LondonSeed, D, 2008 American Travellers in Liverpool, Liverpool

Sharples, J, 2004 Liverpool, Yale

Slaughter, M, 1869 Railway Intelligence, 15, London

Spink and Sons Ltd, 2010 Coins of England and the United Kingdom. 45th edn Standard Catalogueof British Coins, London

Stammers, M, 1999 Images of England: Liverpool Docks, StroudStammers, M, 2007 The Industrial Archaeology of Ports and Harbours, Stroud



Stewart-Brown, R, 1932 Liverpool Ships in the Eighteenth Century, London

UKIC, 1984 Environmental standards for the permanent storage of material from archaeologicalsites, London

Walker, K, 1990 Guidelines for the Preparation of Excavation Archives for Long-term Storage,UKIC, London

Wardell Armstrong, 2005 Liverpool Canal Link: Archaeological Methodology Statement, unpubldoc

Wardell Armstrong, 2006 Mann Island Environmental Statement, unpubl repWeatherill, L, 1971 The pottery trade and North Staffordshire, 1660-1760, Manchester

White, SD, 2004 The Dynamics of Regionalisation and Trade: Yorkshire Clay Tobacco Pipes c1600-1800, Brit Archaeol Rep, Oxford, Brit Ser 374, 567

Wilkinson, C, 2009 Liverpool Characters and Streets: The Photography of CF Inston, LiverpoolWilliams, G, 1897 History of the Liverpool Privateers and Letters of Marque with an account of theLiverpool Slave Trade, LiverpoolWosencroft, C, 1790 Liverpool Directory, Liverpool



APPENDIX 1: POTTERY FABRICS

A1.1 INTRODUCTION

A1.1.1 In order to provide a basic record of the pottery assemblage, the material was dividedinto broad fabric groups and, within those, it was quantified by fragment count andweight. In addition, the entire group was recorded by digital photography.

A1.2 AGATE WARES

A1.2.1 These have a distinctive streaky fabric formed by mixing two differently coloured claysto achieve a marbled effect, and then turning the vessel to reveal the marbled surface(Barker and Halfpenny 1990, 31). A colourless glaze deepens and enhances the colours,suggesting polished agate, hence the name. These were made almost exclusively inStaffordshire during the eighteenth century, being popular through the 1750s, andcontinuing in production until (probably) the 1770s (ibid).

A1.3 BLACK-GLAZED REDWARES

A1.3.1 Made from the local red-firing coal-measure clays, these wares are difficult to assign toa particular source. There is, however, much similarity between the fabrics seen in thisgroup and those of the Prescot kilns (Philpott 1989, especially Fabric 6), known to havebeen major suppliers of blackwares to Liverpool in the eighteenth century (Davey 1991,135). This fabric group shows a very restricted range of forms, being dominated by onlytwo vessel-types: large storage vessels with horizontal lug handles similar to those seenat Prescot (Philpott 1989, figs 10.7.5, 10.8.10, 10.8.16) and from excavations in SouthCastle Street, Liverpool (Davey and McNeil 1985); and large pancheons and/or bowls,again comparable to those from Prescot (Philpott 1989, fig 10.11.29) and the SouthCastle Street excavations.

A1.4 BROWN STONEWARE

A1.4.1 Brown stonewares were made in England from the seventeenth century, mainly by JohnDwight at Fulham (Cotter 2000, 246). Nottingham salt-glazed stonewares, identified bythe characteristic presence of a thin white or grey line between fabric and glaze(Jennings 1981, 219–21), were produced from the late seventeenth century into thenineteenth, and a parallel industry in Derbyshire remained in production into the latetwentieth century. Other brown stonewares were widely produced, and include a widerange of utilitarian wares (Oswald et al 1982).

A1.5 CHINESE AND ENGLISH PORCELAINS

A1.5.1 Chinese hard-paste porcelain began to enter the European market in the later sixteenthcentury, and was known in England from 1596 (Allan 1984, 105–9). It becameincreasingly common during the seventeenth century, and, imported in huge quantitiesby the East India Company as an adjunct to the tea trade, it dominated the fine pottery



market during most of the eighteenth century. The development of English-madesubstitutes, however, brought an end to the trade, and the East India Company ceasedimporting it in 1791 (Hildyard 2005, 123).

A1.5.2 Despite many attempts, porcelain was not produced in England until the 1740s (Godden1974, 13). By the mid-eighteenth century, Liverpool was a major producer, with severalfactories documented (op cit, 262–4). The assemblage from Mann Island wasfragmentary, but comprised a range of teawares, and, importantly, a few biscuit-firedvessels, which are a clear indication of the production of soft-paste porcelain in thelocality. No attempt was made to identify the products of various Liverpool producers.

A1.6 CREAMWARE

A1.6.1 This was also known as Queensware. A fine cream-coloured earthenware with atransparent colourless lead glaze, this was introduced c 1740. Within 20 years, it hadalmost entirely replaced tin-glazed wares and white salt-glazed stonewares as the good-quality tableware in general use (Cotter 2000, 253). Although originally a Staffordshireproduct, it was widely imitated, and Liverpool was a noted production centre (Draper1984, 47) and also decorated Staffordshire products. A range of teawares, dinner wares(including shell-edged plates and tureens), and bedroom wares was present in theassemblage.

A1.7 INDUSTRIAL SLIPWARES

A1.7.1 Industrial Slipwares comprise a number of widely made slip-decorated whiteearthenwares, amongst them banded and marbled wares, Terra Tersia, and Mocha ware.They were made from the late eighteenth century, being particularly popular c 1790–1810 (Hildyard 2005, 173). Although they remained in production well into thenineteenth century, quality declined considerably in the later products.

A1.8 MOTTLED WARES

A1.8.1 These are characterised by a distinctive mottled glaze and were produced from the lateseventeenth century at a number of production sites in Staffordshire, where they were inproduction between 1680 and 1750 (Kelly and Greaves 1974). Evidence suggests thatthey were made locally at Prescot (McNeil 1989; Davey 1991, 135), and Buckley, inClwyd, where they have been assigned to the period 1690–1720 (Amery and Davey1979). It is likely that production continued into the late eighteenth century, asexcavations at the Greatbatch pottery site in Fenton have produced finds dated between1765 and 1775, and probably from as late as 1782 (Barker 1984).

A1.9 PEARLWARE

A1.9.1 This fabric is essentially a variation on Creamware, the blue-tinged glaze being anattempt to create a whiter-seeming fabric. It was produced from 1779 (Draper 1984, 51)into the nineteenth century. Widely produced, it was often under-glaze transfer-printed,and, again, much of the Staffordshire production was sent to Liverpool for decoration



(Hildyard 2005, 100). The range of forms present is similar to that of Creamwares (seeSection A1.6).

A1.10 RED STONEWARE

A1.10.1 Although known in the late seventeenth century, when the Elers brothers wereproducing high-quality vessels (Hildyard 2005, 31), red stonewares seem to have goneout of production in 1698 (Poole 1995, 38), only re-emerging in the mid-eighteenthcentury (Barker and Halfpenny 1990, 44), and continuing in production into thenineteenth century (Poole 1995, 68).

A1.11 SELF-GLAZED REDWARES

A1.11.1 These are in essence identical to black-glazed redwares, but with a colourless glazewhich does not obscure the original colour of the fabric. The composition of the fabricseems identical to that of the black-glazed redwares, and it seems likely that they derivefrom the same sources.

A1.12 SUGAR WARES

A1.12.1 These are represented by two quite different types, the use of which is discussed indetail by Brooks (1983). Sugar-loaf moulds are unglazed redwares, with acharacteristically smoothed interior and a distinctive aperture at their base (ibid). Again,the fabric is very similar to those seen at Prescot, where sugar-loaf moulds are known tohave been produced, and it is quite likely that they were also made in Liverpool. Syrup-collecting jars are wide-shouldered vessels with a distinctive narrow rim. The rim andupper part of the interior are black-glazed, but apart from occasional splashes, theexterior is unglazed.

A1.13 TIN-GLAZED (DELFT) WARES

A1.13.1 The production of tin-glazed wares in England is thought to have begun in London in1567, at the hands of Dutch émigrés (Honey 1969, 33). The industry expanded duringthe seventeenth century, with Bristol becoming a major producer not later than 1669 (opcit), and by the early eighteenth century (c 1710), Liverpool had also become a large-scale producer, with much of its output destined for the American market (Mankowitzand Haggar 1968, 68). Production in Liverpool had come to an end by the 1780s(Hildyard 2005, 100).

A1.14 WHITE EARTHENWARE

A1.14.1 True white earthenwares were perfected in c 1810, from which time they rapidlyreplaced both Creamwares and Pearlwares. Again, although Staffordshire was the majorproducer, Liverpool was a leading manufacturer and continued to decorate the productsof other producers. Much of the Liverpool output was destined for export to the USA(Coysh and Henrywood 1982).



A1.15 WHITE SALT-GLAZED STONEWARE

A1.15.1 White salt-glazed stoneware was made in London in the late seventeenth century(Draper 1984, 36), but it was not until the 1720s that Staffordshire began production ona commercial scale (Jennings 1981, 222), achieving a hey-day of popularity c 1745–65(Hildyard 2005, 49). Production was not entirely confined to Staffordshire, and whitesalt-glazed stonewares were produced in Liverpool and Prescot in South Lancashire(Oswald et al 1982).

Man

n Is

land

, Mer

seys

ide:

Arc

haeo

logi

cal E

xcav

atio

n Re

port

97

For t

he u

se o

f Cou

ntry

side

Nept

une

llp a

nd W

arde

ll Ar

mst

rong

©

OA

Nor

th J

anua

ry 2

012

APP

END

IX 2

: CLA

Y P

IPE

CAT

ALO

GU

E

The

cont

ext s

umm

ary

give

s det

ails

of th

e C

onte

xt (C

xt),

Are

a, ‘o

bjec

t num

ber’

(ORN

) and

pro

visio

nal P

hase

(Ph)

for e

ach

grou

p. T

his i

s fo

llow

ed b

y th

e nu

mbe

rs o

f bow

l(B

), ste

m (S

) and

mou

thpi

ece

(M)

fragm

ents

reco

vere

d fro

m e

ach

cont

ext,

toge

ther

with

two

date

ran

ges.

The

first

(Ran

ge) g

ives

the

max

imum

ove

rall

rang

e of

the

pipe

fragm

ent p

rese

nt in

eac

h gr

oup,

whi

le th

e se

cond

(Dep

osit)

giv

es th

e lik

ely

date

of d

epos

ition

, bas

ed o

n th

e la

test

data

ble

pipe

evi

denc

e pr

esen

t in

the

grou

p. N

ote

that

som

eco

ntex

ts ar

e spl

it be

twee

n m

ore t

han

one ‘

obje

ct n

umbe

r’ (O

RN) a

nd th

at th

e lar

ge k

iln g

roup

(574

7) is

not

show

n in

this

tabl

e.N

B: R

HS

= Ri

ght-H

and

Side

; LH

S =

Left-

Han

d Si

de

Cxt

AREA

ORN

PhB

SM

Tot

Range

Deposit

Marks

Decoration

Comments

2829

A12

043

6/ 73

317

00-

1820

1700

-18

20D

utch

roll

stam

ped

stem

x 1

;bu

rnis

hed

stem

x1

This

is a

n in

tere

stin

g gr

oup,

eve

n th

ough

it o

nly

cont

ains

thre

e ste

ms,

all o

f whi

ch p

roba

bly

date

from

som

ewhe

re b

etw

een

1700

and

182

0. O

ne st

em is

typi

cally

Eng

lish

but t

he o

ther

two

are

prob

ably

Dut

chan

d fro

m d

iffer

ent p

ipes

. Bot

h of

thes

e pi

eces

are

qui

tena

rrow

stra

ight

stem

s with

stem

bor

es o

f 5/6

4". O

nepi

ece

is c

erta

inly

Dut

ch si

nce

it ha

s a ty

pica

l sch

eme

of'ri

ng o

f pea

rls' d

ecor

atio

n fla

nkin

g fo

ur se

rrat

ed b

ands

(Hig

gins

nd)

. Thi

s ste

m is

not

bur

nish

ed a

nd a

ppea

rs to

have

ext

rem

ely

fine

blac

k pa

rticl

es v

isib

le u

nder

mag

nific

atio

n in

the

brok

en fa

bric

. The

oth

er st

em is

not m

arke

d bu

t it i

s thi

n, p

erfe

ctly

stra

ight

and

has

ago

od b

urni

sh. T

hese

cha

ract

eris

tics a

ll su

gges

t it m

ight

be D

utch

rath

er th

an E

nglis

h. T

he fa

bric

is fi

ne a

ndw

ithou

t any

vis

ible

bla

ck in

clus

ions

and

so

it m

ust h

ave

com

e fr

om a

seco

nd p

ipe.

Dut

ch p

ipes

wer

e ne

ver

com

mon

in th

e N

orth

Wes

t and

thes

e pi

eces

are

like

lyto

repr

esen

t ind

ivid

ual i

tem

s car

ried

on a

ship

rath

erth

an tr

aded

goo

ds in

tend

ed fo

r sal

e in

the r

egio

n.

5068

A12

050

51

117

60-

1820

1760

-18

20A

long

(103

mm

) ste

m fr

agm

ent,

fairl

y th

in a

nd w

ith a

curv

e, b

ut w

ith a

larg

e st

em b

ore

(6/6

4").

Ther

e is

an

unus

ual,

shar

ply

rect

angu

lar v

oid

in th

e fa

bric

whe

reso

me

sort

of in

clus

ion

has b

een.

5082

A11

900

6/ 77

29

1660

-19

0018

50-

1900

pale

gre

en g

laze

x1;

pal

e br

own

glaz

e x

1; n

ippl

em

outh

piec

e x

1

Mix

ed st

ems w

ith o

ne la

rge

piec

e of

resi

dual

late

seve

ntee

nth-

cent

ury

stem

(loc

al fa

bric

; bur

nish

ed).

Ther

e is

one

stem

with

a sp

lash

of p

ale

gree

n gl

aze

onan

d a

curt

mou

thpi

ece

with

pal

e br

own

glaz

e. T

he la

test

piec

e is

a n

ippl

e m

outh

piec

e fr

om a

cut

ty p

ipe

ofc1

850-

1900

.

Man

n Is

land

, Mer

seys

ide:

Arc

haeo

logi

cal E

xcav

atio

n Re

port

98

For t

he u

se o

f Cou

ntry

side

Nept

une

llp a

nd W

arde

ll Ar

mst

rong

©

OA

Nor

th J

anua

ry 2

012

5084

1187

64

33

1610

-18

5017

70-

1850

pale

gre

en g

laze

x1

Two

join

ing

fragm

ents

(fre

shly

bro

ken)

of a

seve

ntee

nth-

cent

ury

stem

mad

e of

a c

oars

e lo

cal f

abric

(not

bur

nish

ed) a

nd a

stem

of c

1770

-185

0 w

ith p

ale

gree

n gl

aze

on it

.

5102

1204

04

11

1750

-18

5017

50-

1850

5102

1204

24

22

1700

-19

0017

60-

1900

5116

A11

841

and

1184

9

55

13 214

151

1760

-19

1018

50-6

0JO

NES

/LI

VER

POO

Lan

d st

ars x

1;

McD

OU

GA

LL/ G

LASG

OW

x1;

W.

SOU

THO

RN &

Co

/ BR

OSL

Y 1

SALO

P x

1;…

Co

/ …18

x 1

Flut

es a

nd P

OW

Fx

2; b

eehi

ve x

1;

bead

ed b

orde

r x1;

flat

stem

x 1

;gl

azed

tips

x 1

2;gl

azed

stem

s x 1

6

A la

rge

grou

p w

ith m

any

burn

t fra

gmen

ts b

ut fe

wbo

wls

. One

tip

has a

dul

l pur

plis

h br

own

glaz

e bu

t 11

othe

rs a

nd 1

5 st

em fr

agm

ents

hav

e a l

emon

gre

en g

laze

on th

em. O

ne st

em w

ith b

urnt

gla

ze h

as p

art o

f aSo

utho

rn m

ark

from

Bro

sele

y, a

nd a

full

Sout

horn

mar

k su

rviv

es o

n an

othe

r ste

m (b

oth

late

r tha

n c1

850;

Hig

gins

198

7). T

here

is a

McD

ouga

ll st

em fr

omG

lasg

ow (p

ost-1

846)

and

an

unus

ual d

ecor

ated

bow

lm

arke

d JO

NES

/LIV

ERPO

OL

in u

prig

ht le

tterin

g on

the

RH

S (L

HS

mis

sing

). Th

is c

an b

e at

tribu

ted

to Jo

hnJo

nes

of L

iver

pool

(fat

her a

nd s

on),

who

wer

e w

orki

ngon

thei

r ow

n ac

coun

t fro

m c

1837

-57

(Hig

gins

nd)

.Th

ere

is p

art o

f a s

econ

d bo

wl f

rom

the

sam

e m

ould

;pa

rt of

a b

owl w

ith b

eehi

ve d

ecor

atio

n, a

nd a

flat

stem

with

dia

mon

d se

ctio

n. T

he g

roup

as a

who

le p

roba

bly

date

s fro

m th

e 18

50s.

5117

A11

861

6/ 73

317

00-

1900

1850

-19

00??

GA

RIB

ALD

I/ …

.. X

1Th

ree

stem

s of

mix

ed d

ate,

the

late

st b

eing

from

a c

utty

pipe

of c

1850

-190

0 w

ith a

mou

lded

mar

k on

the

side

sof

the

stem

. Thi

s com

pris

es in

cuse

-mou

lded

lette

ring

with

in a

relie

f-mou

lded

bea

ded

bord

er w

ith p

oint

eden

ds, b

ut th

e m

ark

has e

ither

wor

n al

mos

t com

plet

ely

smoo

th o

r has

bee

n de

lete

d fro

m th

e m

ould

. Ver

y fa

int

shad

ows s

ugge

st th

e fir

st si

de m

ay h

ave

read

GA

RIB

ALD

I, a

popu

lar p

atte

rn n

ame

for p

ipes

follo

win

g th

e ris

e to

pop

ular

ity o

f the

Ital

ian

Gen

eral

of

that

nam

e (H

iggi

ns n

d). S

tem

bor

e 5/

64".

Man

n Is

land

, Mer

seys

ide:

Arc

haeo

logi

cal E

xcav

atio

n Re

port

99

For t

he u

se o

f Cou

ntry

side

Nept

une

llp a

nd W

arde

ll Ar

mst

rong

©

OA

Nor

th J

anua

ry 2

012

5117

1188

86/ 7

55

1760

-19

1017

80-

1910

pale

gre

en g

laze

x 2

5117

A11

905

6/ 71

116

10-

1720

1610

-17

20

5118

1184

6an

d11

906

51

45

1680

-19

0018

50-

1900

LON

DO

N /

LON

DO

Nsh

aped

mou

thpi

ece

x 1

The

four

stem

s inc

lude

one

resi

dual

frag

men

t but

are

othe

rwis

e of

late

eig

htee

nth-

or n

inet

eent

h-ce

ntur

yty

pes.

One

of t

hem

is fl

atte

ned

at o

ne e

nd w

here

am

outh

piec

e is

star

ting

- thi

s wou

ld h

ave

com

e fr

om a

shor

t-ste

mm

ed c

utty

pip

e an

d w

ould

pro

babl

y ha

ve h

ada

nipp

le e

nd. T

he b

owl i

s an

alm

ost c

ompl

ete

spur

less

styl

e w

ith th

ick

wal

ls. I

t has

a g

ood

form

and

is n

eatly

finis

hed.

On

the

stem

side

s is t

he in

cuse

-mou

lded

sans

-se

rif le

tterin

g LO

ND

ON

/ LO

ND

ON

, with

in a

relie

f-m

ould

ed b

eade

d bo

rder

with

loop

end

s. It

is p

ossi

ble

that

LO

ND

ON

repr

esen

ts th

e pa

ttern

nam

e fo

r thi

spa

rticu

lar p

ipe,

rath

er th

an n

eces

saril

y be

ing

its p

lace

of

orig

in. S

tem

bor

e 5/

64".

5122

A11

892

6/ 72

216

60-

1780

1720

-80

Che

ster

-sty

lebo

rder

and

twis

t x1

One

stem

of c

1660

-172

0 an

d an

othe

r of c

1720

-80

with

Che

ster

-sty

le st

ampe

d de

cora

tion,

com

pris

ing

a te

ndril

bord

er si

mila

r to

Hig

gins

Die

780

, and

a d

ecor

ated

spira

l, si

mila

r to

Hig

gins

Die

835

(Hig

gins

nd)

. Thi

spi

ece

has a

stem

bor

e of

5/6

4".

5132

1186

96/ 7

55

1780

-19

1018

50-

1910

DU

BLIN

/ PI

PEx

1M

ixed

stem

frag

men

ts, i

nclu

ding

a th

ick

piec

e w

ith th

ein

cuse

-mou

lded

sans

-ser

if le

tterin

g D

UB

LIN

/ PI

PE,

with

out a

ny b

orde

r. Th

is w

ould

hav

e co

me

from

an

Irish

-sty

le c

utty

of c

1850

-191

0. S

tem

bor

e 5/

64".

5132

1187

56/ 7

55

1750

-19

1017

80-

1910

5133

1190

25

22

1750

-18

5017

50-

1850

5147

1184

82

2914

37

179

1780

-18

0017

80-

1800

W.M

OR

GA

NLI

VER

POO

L x

9; s

tar x

2; d

ot x

1

scal

lop

and

crow

nx

1; st

ag, L

iver

Bird

and

Mas

onic

x 3

A la

rge

grou

p of

pip

es a

nd k

iln w

aste

that

can

be

attri

bute

d to

Will

iam

Mor

gan's

wor

ksho

p (s

tem

mar

ksan

d m

atch

ing

bow

l for

ms;

Hig

gins

201

0).

Man

n Is

land

, Mer

seys

ide:

Arc

haeo

logi

cal E

xcav

atio

n Re

port

100

For t

he u

se o

f Cou

ntry

side

Nept

une

llp a

nd W

arde

ll Ar

mst

rong

©

OA

Nor

th J

anua

ry 2

012

5155

A12

051

21

117

10-7

017

10-7

0W

? B

x 1

The

bow

l is o

f a ty

pica

l Lon

don

styl

e (T

ype

25) a

ndha

s a st

em b

ore

of 5

/64"

(Atk

inso

n an

d O

swal

d 19

69).

Ther

e is

no

inte

rnal

bow

l cro

ss b

ut th

e he

el is

mar

ked

with

relie

f-mou

lded

initi

als.

The

Chris

tian

initi

al is

chip

ped

and

trim

med

shor

t, bu

t app

ears

to h

ave

been

aW

, whi

le th

e su

rnam

e is

B. A

lthou

gh s

imila

r bow

lfo

rms

wer

e m

ade

in C

hest

er (H

iggi

ns n

d), t

he u

se o

fm

ould

ed in

itial

s at t

his d

ate

is e

xtre

mel

y ra

re in

the

Nor

th W

est a

nd th

is is

mos

t lik

ely

to b

e an

impo

rted

exam

ple

from

Lon

don.

5186

A11

897

41

117

00-

1840

1700

-18

40

5188

1187

14

22

1760

-19

0017

60-

1900

5193

A11

884

41

117

80-

1910

1780

-19

10

5194

1185

5;11

856;

1185

7;11

870;

1188

0;11

881;

1188

6;11

890

and

1204

5

414

5367

1750

-19

0018

20-5

0R

ing

and

dot x

1; d

oubl

e rin

g x

2; il

legi

ble

x 2;

EB x

1; E

M x

1

3 x

leaf

seam

son

ly; 9

x le

aves

,flu

tes,

etc

A la

rge

grou

p w

ith a

ll th

e di

agno

stic

pie

ces r

angi

ngfr

om th

e la

te e

ight

eent

h- to

mid

-nin

etee

nth-

cent

ury

and

with

a c

ore

grou

p of

c18

20-5

0 ex

ampl

es. M

any

of th

epi

eces

are

bur

nt a

nd m

ost a

re b

adly

iron

stai

ned.

The

reis

one

scal

lop

and

crow

n bo

wl t

hat c

an b

e at

tribu

ted

toW

Mor

gan

(Typ

e N

) and

ano

ther

is p

roba

bly

mou

ldTy

pe H

- bo

th c

1780

-180

0 (H

iggi

ns 2

010)

. The

re a

re a

few

pla

in fr

agm

ents

that

may

be

also

of t

his d

ate

and

resi

dual

, but

the

rest

have

dec

orat

ion

and

mar

ks ty

pica

lof

c18

20-5

0. T

hese

incl

ude

five

mou

lded

hee

l mar

ks(tw

o of

whi

ch a

re u

nint

ellig

ible

cru

de m

arks

) and

two

stag

's he

ad a

nd sh

ield

bow

l mar

ks -

one

EB (n

o kn

own

Live

rpoo

l mak

er) a

nd th

e ot

her E

M (t

he in

itial

s bei

ngre

peat

ed tw

ice

with

in th

e sh

ield

). Th

e EM

mar

k ca

n be

attri

bute

d to

Eliz

a/El

izab

eth

Mor

gan,

who

is li

sted

inLi

verp

ool d

irect

orie

s fr

om 1

816-

39 (H

iggi

ns n

d). N

ost

em st

amps

are

pre

sent

and

just

one

stem

that

app

ears

to h

ave

a sp

lash

of b

urnt

gla

ze o

n it.

Man

n Is

land

, Mer

seys

ide:

Arc

haeo

logi

cal E

xcav

atio

n Re

port

101

For t

he u

se o

f Cou

ntry

side

Nept

une

llp a

nd W

arde

ll Ar

mst

rong

©

OA

Nor

th J

anua

ry 2

012

5225

B11

891

53

316

80-

1900

1760

-19

00O

ne re

sidu

al st

em a

nd tw

o ot

hers

of l

ate

eigh

teen

th- o

rni

nete

enth

-cen

tury

dat

e.

5230

1188

536/ 7

66

1750

-19

0017

50-

1900

5236

B T

r8

1186

25

11

1760

-19

0017

60-

1900

5248

B T

r8

1184

34

22

1700

-18

4017

60-

1840

5249

Tr 8

1188

74

11

1837

-57

1837

-57

?J J

x 1

Flow

ers,

star

, etc

x 1

Low

er p

art o

f a b

owl o

f c18

20-5

0 de

cora

ted

with

asp

ray

of fl

ower

s or

ber

ries a

t the

bas

e on

eac

h si

de, a

nda

star

on

the

RH

S (L

HS

is m

issi

ng).

Ther

e is

a d

oubl

e-lin

ed s

hiel

d fa

cing

the

smok

er, w

ith th

e in

itial

s ?J J

.Th

is c

an b

e at

tribu

ted

to Jo

hn J

ones

, one

of t

hepr

inci

pal m

anuf

actu

rers

in L

iver

pool

from

c18

37-5

7(H

iggi

ns n

d). S

tem

bor

e 6/

64".

5271

B T

r8

1185

14

99

1700

-18

4017

70-

1810

J.A

THER

TO…

x 1

pale

gre

en g

laze

x1;

ligh

t bro

wn

glaz

e x

1

Nin

e st

ems o

f eig

htee

nth-

to e

arly

nin

etee

nth-

cent

ury

type

s, tw

o of

whi

ch a

re g

laze

d (o

ne p

ale

gree

n an

d th

eot

her l

ight

bro

wn)

. One

qui

te th

ick

stem

with

a st

embo

re o

f jus

t ove

r 6/6

4" is

stam

ped

J.ATH

ERTO

….

Jam

es A

ther

ton

is re

cord

ed a

s a L

iver

pool

mak

er fr

om17

69-1

805

(Hig

gins

nd)

.

5273

1185

84

11

1640

-17

4016

40-

1740

burn

ishe

d x

1St

em fr

agm

ent o

f c16

40-1

740,

mad

e of

a g

ritty

loca

lfa

bric

and

with

a p

oor b

urni

sh o

n its

surf

ace.

5273

B11

860

44

417

00-

1840

1770

-18

20…

LIV

ERPO

OL

. x 1

Four

qui

te th

ick,

chu

nky

stem

s, w

ith re

lativ

ely

larg

ebo

res,

mak

ing

them

har

d to

dat

e ac

cura

tely

but

mos

tlik

ely

all a

re la

te e

ight

eent

h ce

ntur

y. O

ne h

as th

e en

d of

a Li

verp

ool m

aker

's st

amp

on it

(with

a fu

ll st

op a

fter

the

wor

d 'L

IVER

POO

L.').

Ste

m b

ore

of th

is p

iece

isra

ther

irre

gula

r, bu

t abo

ut 6

/64"

.

5274

1186

44

22

1760

-19

0017

60-

1900

Man

n Is

land

, Mer

seys

ide:

Arc

haeo

logi

cal E

xcav

atio

n Re

port

102

For t

he u

se o

f Cou

ntry

side

Nept

une

llp a

nd W

arde

ll Ar

mst

rong

©

OA

Nor

th J

anua

ry 2

012

5299

B12

053

21

117

80-

1810

1780

-18

10St

ag’s

hea

d,M

ason

ic a

ndG

lasg

ow A

rms

A ty

pica

l Liv

erpo

ol-s

tyle

bow

l of c

1780

-181

0, w

ith a

stag

's he

ad fa

cing

the

smok

er a

nd tr

aces

of M

ason

icm

otifs

on

the

RH

S. W

hat m

akes

this

bow

l not

able

is th

ede

pict

ion

of th

e G

lasg

ow A

rms

(bird

, tre

e, b

ell a

nd fi

sh)

on it

s LH

S, su

rrou

nded

by

flow

ers.

Ano

ther

exa

mpl

e,pr

obab

ly fr

om th

e sa

me

mou

ld, h

as b

een

reco

vere

dfr

om th

e M

anch

este

r Doc

k ex

cava

tions

(MO

Lfo

rthco

min

g (9

7 26

6 <3

110>

). It

seem

s tha

t thi

s des

ign

mus

t hav

e be

en m

ade

in th

e Li

verp

ool a

rea,

pre

sum

ably

as a

n ex

port

desti

ned

for S

cotla

nd.

5335

B T

r8

1184

44

11

1680

-18

0016

80-

1800

Abr

aded

stem

frag

men

t - a

ppea

rs to

be

wat

er-r

olle

d.M

ay w

ell b

e re

sidu

al.

5356

1184

26/ 7

22

1610

-18

8017

80-

1880

5396

B6/ 7

11

1780

-19

0017

80-

1900

5407

B T

r8

1186

36/ 7

11

1780

-19

1017

80-

1910

5409

B T

r8

1185

25

29

112

1750

-19

0018

10-5

0do

uble

ring

x 1

flute

d, e

tc x

2Th

e st

ems a

re m

ainl

y of

late

eig

htee

nth-

or n

inet

eent

h-ce

ntur

y ty

pes

and

ther

e is

one

sim

ple

cut m

outh

piec

e,no

t gla

zed.

The

bow

l fra

gmen

ts b

oth

date

from

c18

10-

50. O

ne h

as a

dou

ble

ring

mar

k on

bot

h si

des o

f the

spur

and

the

star

t of f

lute

d de

cora

tion

on th

e bo

wl,

whi

ch is

larg

ely

mis

sing

. The

oth

er p

iece

is a

rim

frag

men

t with

ver

tical

-mou

lded

line

s at t

he to

p an

d th

ensc

allo

ped

deco

ratio

n w

ith st

ars a

bove

, on

the

seam

away

from

the

smok

er.

5478

B T

r8

1184

76/ 7

27

917

50-

1900

1820

-50

star

s x 2

; J …

x1

whe

at sh

eaf a

ndbi

rd x

1;

scal

lope

d, e

tc x

1

Stem

s of g

ener

al la

ter e

ight

eent

h- o

r nin

etee

nth-

cent

ury

type

s bu

t bot

h bo

wls

are

c18

20-5

0 an

d su

bsta

ntia

llyco

mpl

ete,

and

with

up

to 8

7mm

of s

urvi

ving

stem

. Bot

hha

ve st

em b

ores

of 5

/64"

and

star

mar

ks o

n ea

ch si

de o

fth

e sp

ur. O

ne b

owl i

s dec

orat

ed w

ith a

pan

el d

ecor

atio

nab

ove

encl

osed

flut

es d

epic

ting

a w

heat

shea

f on

the

left

side

and

a b

ird o

n th

e rig

ht. T

he o

ther

has

sca

llope

dde

cora

tion,

with

star

s and

folia

ge a

nd a

shie

ld fa

cing

the

smok

er w

ith ju

st th

e in

itial

J (C

hris

tian

nam

e)su

rviv

ing.

Man

n Is

land

, Mer

seys

ide:

Arc

haeo

logi

cal E

xcav

atio

n Re

port

103

For t

he u

se o

f Cou

ntry

side

Nept

une

llp a

nd W

arde

ll Ar

mst

rong

©

OA

Nor

th J

anua

ry 2

012

5660

B11

882

41

116

80-

1750

1680

-17

50

5701

A11

839

52

216

80-

1780

1680

-17

80Tw

o ab

rade

d fra

gmen

ts, b

oth

of w

hich

look

as i

f the

yha

ve b

een

wat

er-r

olle

d fo

r som

e tim

e.

5708

A12

047

25

421

4817

00-

1850

1770

-18

10al

mos

t cle

ar g

laze

x 3;

pal

e br

own

glaz

e x

2

Stem

frag

men

ts a

re a

ll ge

nera

l 170

0-18

50 ty

pes,

but t

hefiv

e bo

wl f

ragm

ents

are

all

deco

rate

d an

d su

gges

t a d

ate

of c

1770

-181

0 (H

iggi

ns n

d). T

here

is o

ne c

ompl

ete

spur

bow

l with

Mas

onic

dec

orat

ion,

whi

ch is

unu

sual

as i

t is

of a

Yor

kshi

re st

yle

(Hig

gins

and

Dav

ey 2

004)

. Thi

sha

s an

inte

rnal

ly tr

imm

ed a

nd li

ghtly

wip

ed ri

m b

ut n

oin

tern

al b

owl c

ross

. Ste

m b

ore

5/64

". Th

ere

are

frag

men

ts o

f tw

o lo

cal b

owls

with

stag

's he

ad a

ndM

ason

ic d

ecor

atio

n fr

om d

iffer

ent m

ould

s (on

e w

ith a

whe

at sh

eaf o

n th

e le

ft an

d M

ason

ic e

mbl

ems o

n th

erig

ht; o

nly

the

right

side

of t

he o

ther

surv

ives

, with

Mas

onic

em

blem

s) a

nd tw

o sm

alle

r dec

orat

edfr

agm

ents

from

sim

ilar b

owls

(too

sm

all t

o id

entif

y th

eex

act d

esig

ns o

r mou

ld ty

pes)

. Fiv

e st

ems h

ave

glaz

esp

lash

es o

n (th

ree

alm

ost c

lear

and

two

light

bro

wn)

.Th

e sin

gle

mou

thpi

ece

is c

ut a

nd n

ot g

laze

d.

5712

A11

894

23

317

40-

1840

1740

-18

40M

ost l

ikel

y la

ter e

ight

eent

h- o

r ear

ly n

inet

eent

h-ce

ntur

yin

dat

e.

5725

1188

32

33

1740

-18

4017

40-

1840

Mos

t lik

ely

late

r eig

htee

nth-

or e

arly

nin

etee

nth-

cent

ury

in d

ate.

5730

A11

879

36

617

00-

1850

1760

-18

50

5730

A11

885

36

616

80-

1850

1760

-18

50So

me

stem

s app

ear t

o be

resi

dual

late

seve

ntee

nth-

cent

ury

or e

arly

eig

htee

nth-

cent

ury,

but

the

rest

are

late

rei

ghte

enth

- to

mid

-nin

etee

nth-

cent

ury

type

s.

5732

A11

874

41

116

80-

1800

1680

-18

00

5735

1190

32

11

1700

-18

5017

00-

1850

Smal

l fra

gmen

t, ha

rd to

dat

e, b

ut m

ost l

ikel

y la

ter

eigh

teen

th- o

r ear

ly n

inet

eent

h-ce

ntur

y in

dat

e.

Man

n Is

land

, Mer

seys

ide:

Arc

haeo

logi

cal E

xcav

atio

n Re

port

104

For t

he u

se o

f Cou

ntry

side

Nept

une

llp a

nd W

arde

ll Ar

mst

rong

©

OA

Nor

th J

anua

ry 2

012

5739

A11

898

31

78

1700

-18

5017

60-

1850

pale

gre

en g

laze

x1

The

stem

s loo

k to

be

mix

ed e

ight

eent

h- to

mid

-ni

nete

enth

-cen

tury

type

s, w

ith th

e la

test

bei

ng a

long

(130

mm

), fa

irly

thin

frag

men

t (st

raig

ht) a

nd a

pie

cew

ith sp

lash

es o

f pal

e gr

een

glaz

e on

. The

sing

le b

owl

frag

men

t is a

pla

in p

iece

of e

ight

eent

h- o

r ear

lyni

nete

enth

-cen

tury

dat

e.

5748

1204

12

3131

1780

-18

0017

80-

1800

star

s x 1

; eye

s x1

stag

, Mas

onic

, etc

x 8;

scal

lop

and

crow

n x

1 - p

lus

thre

e ki

lnfu

rnitu

refr

agm

ents

This

gro

up m

ust r

epre

sent

kiln

was

te, s

ince

non

e of

the

bow

ls is

sm

oked

and

ther

e ar

e al

so tw

o fr

agm

ents

ofcl

ay sh

eet a

nd a

cla

y st

rip in

the

sam

e co

ntex

t. St

ems d

ono

t app

ear t

o ha

ve b

een

colle

cted

. The

was

te c

an b

eat

tribu

ted

to W

illia

m M

orga

n, si

nce

seve

ral o

f the

mou

ld ty

pes

mat

ch 1

780s

was

te fr

om th

e Ca

nal L

ink

site

(Hig

gins

201

0). T

here

are

22

plai

n bo

wl f

ragm

ents

,in

clud

ing

two

with

mou

lded

mar

ks -

star

s and

all

seei

ngey

es -

and

nine

mou

ld-d

ecor

ated

frag

men

ts -

eigh

t fro

ma

stag

and

Mas

onic

des

ign,

and

one

from

a sc

allo

p an

dcr

own

desi

gn.

5751

A11

859

32

101

1317

60-

1850

1820

-50

Pane

l dec

orat

edw

ith c

row

ned

harp

and

Mas

onic

mot

ifs; p

urpl

ish

brow

n gl

aze

x 1

The

stem

s are

all

late

r eig

htee

nth-

to m

id-n

inet

eent

h-ce

ntur

y ty

pes

and

the

sim

ply

cut m

outh

piec

e ha

s an

unus

ual p

urpl

ish-

brow

n gl

aze

on it

. The

re is

par

t of a

plai

n sp

ur b

owl a

nd a

dec

orat

ed b

owl o

f c18

20-5

0,w

hich

pro

vide

s the

bes

t dat

ing

for t

he g

roup

as a

who

le.

This

has

its s

pur m

issi

ng b

ut is

oth

erw

ise

com

plet

e,w

ith p

anel

dec

orat

ion

com

pris

ing

a cr

owne

d ha

rp a

ndflo

wer

s on

the

LHS

and

Mas

onic

mot

ifs w

ith fl

ower

son

the

RH

S. T

here

is a

dee

p m

ould

ed b

and,

line

d w

ithcr

oss

mot

ifs a

roun

d th

e rim

, enc

lose

d flu

tes o

n th

elo

wer

par

t of t

he b

owl a

nd le

aves

on

the

seam

s. St

embo

re 5

/64"

.

5752

1189

36/ 7

12

317

50-

1910

1780

-19

10Th

e la

test

stem

is o

f lat

e ei

ghte

enth

- or n

inet

eent

h-ce

ntur

y ty

pe a

nd th

e sm

all f

ragm

ent o

f pla

in b

owl i

s of

sim

ilar d

ate.

5752

1204

66/ 7

22

1760

-18

3017

60-

1830

Man

n Is

land

, Mer

seys

ide:

Arc

haeo

logi

cal E

xcav

atio

n Re

port

105

For t

he u

se o

f Cou

ntry

side

Nept

une

llp a

nd W

arde

ll Ar

mst

rong

©

OA

Nor

th J

anua

ry 2

012

5754

A11

872

6/ 71

116

80-

1780

1680

-17

80

5756

A11

878

6/ 71

117

80-

1840

1780

-18

40pa

le g

reen

gla

ze x

1St

em fr

agm

ent w

ith p

ale

gree

n gl

aze.

5758

A11

899

6/ 72

217

60-

1850

1760

-18

50

5761

A11

877

6/ 71

56

1760

-18

4017

90-

1830

Stag

’s h

ead

and

Mas

onic

x 1

; pal

egr

een

glaz

e x

2

Stem

s of l

ate

eigh

teen

th- o

r ear

ly n

inet

eent

h-ce

ntur

yty

pe, t

wo

of w

hich

hav

e tra

ces o

f pal

e gr

een

glaz

e on

them

. The

bow

l is d

amag

ed, b

ut w

ith 7

5mm

of

surv

ivin

g st

em, a

nd is

dec

orat

ed w

ith a

stag

’s h

ead

mot

if w

ith fl

utes

, fol

iage

, Mas

onic

em

blem

s, et

c. S

tem

bore

6/6

4".

5763

A4

216

1817

00-

1900

1760

-18

20C

HA

. … x

1sc

allo

ps x

1;

gree

n gl

aze

x 1;

light

bro

wn

glaz

ex

1

The

stem

s cou

ld ra

nge

from

c17

00-1

900

but a

ll th

em

ore

diag

nost

ic p

iece

s poi

nt to

a la

te e

ight

eent

h- to

early

nin

etee

nth-

cent

ury

date

. One

stem

has

a g

reen

glaz

e an

d an

othe

r tra

ces

of a

ligh

t bro

wn

glaz

e. O

nebo

wl f

ragm

ent i

s pla

in a

nd th

e ot

her h

as a

larg

e sc

allo

pde

sign

aw

ay fr

om th

e sm

oker

(the

styl

e th

at u

sual

ly h

asa

crow

n fa

cing

the

smok

er).

One

par

tial s

tem

mar

ksu

rviv

es w

ith a

stem

bor

e of

5/6

4". T

his s

tarts

'CH

A.',

with

a d

ot s

epar

atin

g th

e ne

xt le

tter,

whi

ch a

ppea

rs to

have

bee

n a

B, E

, F, H

or P

. The

onl

y re

cord

edLi

verp

ool m

aker

at t

his d

ate

calle

d C

harle

s w

ith o

ne o

fth

ese

surn

ame

lette

rs is

Cha

rles P

owel

l, re

cord

edw

orki

ng fr

om 1

790-

6 (H

iggi

ns n

d).

5773

A11

840

36

17

1740

-18

5017

60-

1850

pale

gre

en g

laze

x2

One

mou

thpi

ece

(sim

ply

cut)

and

a st

em h

ave

pale

gree

n gl

aze

on th

em.

5793

A12

048

6/ 726

329

1700

-19

0017

80-

1840

Yel

low

ish-

brow

ngl

aze

x 9;

pal

eye

llow

ish-

gree

ngl

aze

x 1

This

gro

up c

onta

ins t

wo

cut m

outh

piec

e, o

ne u

ngla

zed

and

the

othe

r with

yel

low

ish

gree

n gl

aze

on. T

here

isal

so a

stem

that

has

bee

n co

unte

d as

a m

outh

piec

e,si

nce

it is

gla

zed

acro

ss th

e en

d, b

ut th

is h

as c

lear

lybe

en b

roke

n so

me

way

from

whe

re th

e ac

tual

tip

shou

ldha

ve b

een.

Thi

s pie

ce jo

ins a

noth

er g

laze

d st

em to

giv

ea

frag

men

t 57m

m lo

ng, a

lmos

t all

of w

hich

is c

over

edw

ith a

pal

e ye

llow

ish

brow

n gl

aze.

Sev

en o

ther

stem

sal

so h

ave

pale

yel

low

ish-

brow

n gl

aze

on, t

he e

xact

colo

ur v

aryi

ng s

light

ly fr

om p

iece

to p

iece

.

Man

n Is

land

, Mer

seys

ide:

Arc

haeo

logi

cal E

xcav

atio

n Re

port

106

For t

he u

se o

f Cou

ntry

side

Nept

une

llp a

nd W

arde

ll Ar

mst

rong

©

OA

Nor

th J

anua

ry 2

012

5793

A12

052

6/ 77

717

50-

1880

1780

-18

80pa

le b

row

n gl

aze

x 3;

pal

e gr

een

glaz

e x

1

Seve

n st

ems,

mos

t lik

ely

of la

te e

ight

eent

h- o

r ear

lyni

nete

enth

-cen

tury

dat

e. T

here

are

thre

e w

ith p

ale

brow

n gl

aze

on th

em a

nd o

ne w

ith p

ale

gree

n gl

aze.

5799

1189

63

44

1760

-18

5017

60-

1850

Four

fairl

y th

in, s

traig

ht st

em fr

agm

ents

, thr

ee o

f whi

char

e ve

ry h

ighl

y fir

ed (n

ear s

tone

war

e) a

nd e

ncru

sted

,pe

rhap

s fro

m h

avin

g be

en b

uilt

into

a m

uffle

. If n

ot,

then

they

alm

ost c

erta

inly

repr

esen

t kiln

was

te.

5885

1197

32

11

1740

-18

4017

40-

1840

Qui

te a

thic

k, st

raig

ht st

em. M

ost l

ikel

y la

ter

eigh

teen

th-c

entu

ry in

dat

e.

7212

C12

044

515

217

1660

-19

1017

70-

1840

C.K

ENY

ON

-LI

VER

POO

…x

1

light

gre

en g

laze

x2;

ligh

t bro

wn

glaz

e x

1

A gr

oup

of s

tem

s, al

mos

t all

of w

hich

wou

ld fi

t with

ala

te e

ight

eent

h- o

r ear

ly n

inet

eent

h-ce

ntur

y da

te (o

ne o

rtw

o re

sidu

al p

iece

s). O

ne ti

p an

d a

stem

hav

e lig

htgr

een

glaz

e an

d an

othe

r tip

is li

ght b

row

n. T

here

is a

nal

mos

t com

plet

e st

em m

ark

used

by

Cha

rles

Ken

yon

ofLi

verp

ool,

who

is re

cord

ed w

orki

ng fr

om a

t lea

st 1

772-

1811

(Hig

gins

nd)

. Thi

s has

a st

em b

ore

of 5

/64"

.

7282

C13

089

6/ 72

217

80-

1880

1780

-18

80pu

rplis

h-br

own

glaz

e x

1O

ne st

em h

as tr

aces

of a

pur

plis

h-br

own

glaz

e on

.

7683

2013

14

66

1680

-18

5017

60-

1850

One

resi

dual

stem

(lat

e se

vent

eent

h-ce

ntur

y to

ear

lyei

ghte

enth

-cen

tury

) is w

ater

-rol

led.

Mos

t of t

he st

ems

are

likel

y to

be

late

r eig

htee

nth-

to m

id-n

inet

eent

h-ce

ntur

y, in

clud

ing

one

over

fired

pie

ce a

nd tw

o jo

inin

gpi

eces

(fre

shly

bro

ken)

mak

ing

a lo

ng s

ectio

n of

131m

m.

7786

2012

41

11

1700

-18

5017

00-

1850

Ver

y ab

rade

d fr

agm

ent -

look

s to

hav

e be

en w

ater

-ro

lled.

7787

2012

31

22

1740

-19

0017

60-

1900

One

frag

men

t pro

babl

y da

tes f

rom

c17

40-1

840

and

the

othe

r c17

60-1

900.

7855

2013

51

11

1680

-18

0016

80-

1800

Man

n Is

land

, Mer

seys

ide:

Arc

haeo

logi

cal E

xcav

atio

n Re

port

107

For t

he u

se o

f Cou

ntry

side

Nept

une

llp a

nd W

arde

ll Ar

mst

rong

©

OA

Nor

th J

anua

ry 2

012

Gen

eral

Cle

anin

gLa

yer

05/0

9/07

*

1188

96/ 7

45

917

40-

1900

1780

-18

50Th

e ste

ms a

re a

ll la

ter e

ight

eent

h- o

r nin

etee

nth-

cent

ury

type

s. T

hree

pla

in b

owl f

ragm

ents

fit (

fresh

ly b

roke

n)to

mak

e up

an

alm

ost c

ompl

ete

bow

l of c

1780

-185

0.Th

ere

is th

e he

el fr

om a

noth

er o

f sim

ilar d

ate.

U/S

A11

907

6/ 71

12

1780

-19

0017

80-

1900

pale

gre

en g

laze

x1

Two

late

eig

htee

nth-

cent

ury

or la

ter f

ragm

ents

, the

mou

thpi

ece

havi

ng a

sim

ple

cut e

nd a

nd a

pal

e gr

een

glaz

e co

atin

g.

U/S

A Bul

k6/ 7

11

1660

-17

1016

60-

1710

burn

ishe

d x

1Fr

agm

ent o

f ste

m m

ade

of a

loca

l grit

ty fa

bric

and

with

a go

od b

urni

sh.

TOTAL

103

614

33750


For the use of Countryside Neptune llp and Wardell Armstrong © OA North January 2012

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURES

Fig 1: Site LocationFig 2: Extent of site overlaid on aerial photograph (2008) prior to excavations commencing

Fig 3: The excavation areasFig 4: Excavation areas superimposed on Chadwick’s map of Liverpool, 1725

Fig 5: Excavation areas superimposed on John Eyes’ map of Liverpool, 1765Fig 6: Excavation areas superimposed on Perry’s map of Liverpool, 1769Fig 7: Excavation areas superimposed on Charles Eyes’ map of Liverpool, 1785

Fig 8: Excavation areas superimposed on Horwood’s map of Liverpool, 1803Fig 9: Excavation areas superimposed on Gage’s map of Liverpool, 1836

Fig 10: Excavation areas superimposed on Ordnance Survey map, 1850Fig 11: Excavation areas superimposed on Ordnance Survey map, 1908

Fig 12: Area BFig 13: Area A

Fig 14: Laser scan of elevations of sea wall 5707Fig 15: Laser scan of elevations of sea wall 7638

Fig 16: Laser scan of elevations of Birds Slip, 7735Fig 17: Area A, showing the interface between 5707, 7638 and 7725

Fig 18: Area CFig 19: Area A – Manchester Dock

Fig 20: Laser scan of elevations of Manchester DockFig 21: Areas of excavation at Mann Island, Murray Place and Nova Scotia, overlaid on the

Ordnance Survey 25” to 1 mile map of 1908

Fig 22: Area A (south) superimposed on Horwood’s map of 1803

Fig 23: Plan of Transit Shed and Voss GarageFig 24: Location of clay pipe dumps, with inset showing 5115 in section

Fig 25: Archaeological work undertaken in the immediate area of Mann IslandFig 26: Decorated clap pipe bowls, and mould types of William Morgan



PLATES

Plate 1: West-facing view across the northern wall of Dry Dock 5270, Area BPlate 2: Sea Wall 5707, west-facing elevation, also showing timbers 7736; Area A

Plate 3: The curving return to the east of sea wall 5707Plate 4: Sea Wall 7638, west-facing elevation, Area A

Plate 5: Bird’s Slip 7735, west-facing elevation, Area APlate 6: Aerial view of Area A showing the junction of sea walls 5707, 7638, 7735 and 7636;

Area APlate 7: Aerial view of the northern end of Nova Scotia and (centre left) the early, angled

yellow sandstone wall, 5141; Area APlate 8: South-facing view of the excavated cellar complex at Mann Island and Nova Scotia

Plate 9: Area C: east-facing view of excavated cellar complex at Mann IslandPlate 10: Burnt elements of the structure, and coal deposits consistent with Mr Fraser’s Coal

YardPlate 11: Area C: south-facing view of the western wall of George’s Dock Passage

Plate 12: Northern limit of slip 7636, returning to the westPlate 13: Temporary works structure 7764 between sea wall 7638 and slip 7636Plate 14: Interior of Manchester Dock, 7600, showing the northern and eastern walls

Plate 15: Crane base at the rear of Manchester DockPlate 16: The rear of Manchester Dock (north-east corner), showing temporary works

platform in the foregroundPlate 17: Warehouse loading well, cut into sea wall 7638, north-facing view

Plate 18: Interior of Manchester Dock, showing the remains of timber piers and sandstonebackfill

Plate 19: The Guibal-fan-style fan housing in the Pumping Station at the eastern limit ofArea B

Plate 20: North-facing view across Area B, showing the Pumping Station to the right

Plate 21: Transit sheds fronting onto Irwell Street in 2007

Plate 22: The principal elevation of Voss Motors in 2007, overlooking Mann IslandPlate 23: Worn and abraded tin-glazed ware

Plate 24: Staffordshire-type slipware cupPlate 25: Stoneware plate, the poor quality of the moulding suggesting that it might be a locally

made ‘second’Plate 26: Scratch blue stoneware chamber pot, with a medallion stamped with the cipher of

George III (right)



Plate 27: Lustre-ware jug

Plate 28: Creamware jug with over-glaze Masonic designs printed in blackPlate 29: Mocha-ware jug

Plate 30: Shallow self-glazed dish, possibly a Prescot productPlate 31: Tin-glazed wall tile

Mann Island, Liverpool, Archaeological Excavation Report

For the use of Countryside Neptune and Wardell Armstrong © OA North: January 2012

PLATES

Plate 1: West-facing view across the northern wall of Dry Dock, 5270, Area B



Plate 2: Sea wall 5707, west-facing elevation, also showing timbers 7736;Area A

Plate 3: The curving return to the east of sea wall 5707



Plate 4: Sea wall 7638, west-facing elevation, Area A

Plate 5: Bird’s Slip 7735, west-facing elevation, Area A



Plate 6: Aerial view of Area A, showing the junction of sea walls 5707, 7638, 7735and 7636

Plate 7: Aerial view of the northern end of Nova Scotia and (centre left) theearly, angled yellow sandstone wall, 5141; Area A



Plate 8: South-facing view of the excavated cellar complex at Mann Island and NovaScotia

Plate 9: Area C: east-facing view of excavated cellar complex at Mann Island



Plate 10: Burnt elements of the structure, and coal deposits consistent with MrFraser’s Coal Yard

Plate 11: Area C: south-facing view of the western wall of George’s Dock Passage



Plate 12: Northern limit of slip 7636, returning to the west

Plate 13: Temporary works structure 7764 between sea wall 7638 and slip7636



Plate 14: Interior of Manchester Dock, 7600, showing the northern and eastern walls

Plate 15: Crane base at the rear of Manchester Dock



Plate 16: The rear of Manchester Dock (north-east corner), showing temporaryworks platform in the foreground

Plate 17: Warehouse loading well, cut into sea wall 7638, north-facing view



Plate 18: Interior of Manchester Dock, showing the remains of timber piers andsandstone backfill

Plate 19: The Guibal-fan-style fan housing in the Pumping Station at the eastern limitof Area B



Plate 20: North-facing view across Area B, showing the Pumping Station to the right

Plate 21: Transit sheds fronting onto Irwell Street in 2007



Plate 22: The principal elevation of Voss Motors in 2007 overlooking MannIsland

Plate 23: Worn and abraded tin-glazed ware



Plate 24: Staffordshire-type slipware cup

Plate 25: Stoneware plate, the poor quality of the moulding suggesting that it might bea locally made ‘second’



Plate 26: Scratch blue stoneware chamber pot, with a medallion stamped with thecipher of George III (right)

Plate 27: Lustre-ware jug



Plate 28: Creamware jug with over-glaze Masonic designs printed in black

Plate 29: Mocha-ware jug



Plate 30: Shallow self-glazed dish, possibly a Prescot product

Plate 31: Tin-glazed wall tile

Oxford Archaeology NorthMill 3Moor Lane MillsMoor LaneLancasterLA1 1GFt: (01524 541000f: (01524) 848606e: [email protected]: www.oxfordarch.co.uk

Director and Chief Executive:David Jennings BA MIFA FSA

Private Limited Company Number: 1618597

Registered Charity Number: 285627

Registered Office: Oxford Archaeology Ltd.Janus House, Osney Mead, Oxford, OX2 0ES

Documents

Liverpool Merseyside - library › 2467 › 1 › L10312_MI... · 2015-03-12 · MANN ISLAND, Liverpool Merseyside Archaeological Excavation Report Oxford Archaeology North March